{"id":338213,"date":"2024-08-01T16:56:55","date_gmt":"2024-08-01T14:56:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=338213"},"modified":"2024-08-01T16:56:57","modified_gmt":"2024-08-01T14:56:57","slug":"the-effect-of-a-colder-solids-thermal-radiation-on-a-warmer-solid-exposed-to-sunlight","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=338213","title":{"rendered":"The Effect of a Colder Solid\u2019s Thermal Radiation on a Warmer Solid Exposed to Sunlight"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

experiments performed July 10th <\/strong><\/em>2024<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

by Dale Cloudman<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

It is experimentally shown that the thermal radiation from a transparent, colder solid has the capacity to influence a solid warmer than it to become even warmer, under the right circumstances. This dispels the critique of the greenhouse effect that, as heat only flows from hot to cold, the effect is thermodynamically impossible. Even so, significant portions of the theory of the greenhouse effect remain experimentally unproven, signaling caution rather than uncritical acceptance of the theory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

A long-running debate about the physical reality of the greenhouse effect centers around whether the thermal radiation from the colder atmosphere can possibly have a warming effect on the warmer Earth\u2019s surface. The argument goes as follows: as heat only flows from hot to cold, the radiation emitted by a colder object cannot possibly cause a warmer object to become warmer. It might have a reduced cooling effect, but under no circumstances can it result in a warming effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most salient features of such debates are that neither side provides experimental evidence in their defense, and that the debates frequently devolve into heated arguments, which is generally an indicator that solid arguments are lacking. As genuine scientific knowledge is acquired via experimentation performed in physical reality, and not theory or \u201cexperiments<\/a>\u201d (sic!) consisting of computer simulations, I sought to settle the debate once and for all with a properly-performed experiment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I constructed a de Saussure-style hotbox<\/a>, above which I placed a clear glass plate separated by a good amount of space. I pointed it towards the Sun, and, left to its own devices, the bottom of the box got to around 100\u00baC, with the glass plate getting to around 30\u00baC. I then swapped the glass plate with an identical one that was pre-heated to 60-70\u00baC, and the result was unmistakable: the already much hotter bottom of the box got even hotter as a result. I ruled out any possible conductive or convective effects, concluding it was due to increased thermal radiation coming from the +30-40\u00baC warmer glass plate. Although this neatly dispels this particular critique of the greenhouse effect, significant obstacles remain before being able to accept that the greenhouse effect behaves as-described.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Demonstration<\/h3>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

The apparatus (Figure 1, Figure 2) consists of a hotbox made of styrofoam, with the inside floor being cardboard and the inside walls and floors spray-painted black. Two layers of thin plastic polyethylene film suppress convection with the outside air. Surrounding these is another piece of styrofoam to further prevent heat loss through the sides. Cotton padding between the styrofoam pieces provides further insulation.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

On top of the hotbox are two styrofoam walls that support an extra-clear glass plate on top. This is the glass that is swapped with an identical, hotter version during the experiment. A middle mount point allows the optional mounting of another plate in the middle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Temperatures are measured with Type K thermocouples, labeled and color-coded for ease of reference. Styrofoam pieces immediately above yet not touching them serve as radiation shields. The solar insolation is measured with an Apogee SP-510-SS pyranometer<\/a>, and the net infrared gain or loss is measured with an Apogee SL-510-SS pyrgeometer<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I pointed the apparatus at the sun and let it heat up on its own. In the meantime, I set aside an identical extra-clear glass plate, on top of which I placed an aluminum plate with a pot of water on top. An immersion heater kept the water temperature at a constant 80-90\u00baC, which heat diffused downwards to heat the glass plate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once the bottom plate exceeded 100\u00baC, I swapped the cool glass with the hot glass, first by hovering the hot glass above it, then removing the cool glass and placing the hot glass in the same position. This swapping technique provides a dip in measured solar insolation due to both glasses absorbing the sunlight rather than just one. This clearly delineates the swaps, and ensures there is no extra heating effect due to slightly higher insolation that would happen if we first removed one glass and then replaced it with the other glass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I performed five swaps as above, with Tcoolglass<\/strong><\/mark> measuring 30-38\u00baC and Thotglass<\/strong><\/mark> measuring between 67-75\u00baC at the start of the swaps. The result was clear and unambiguous in every case: Tbottom<\/strong><\/mark> shot up rapidly in response. The following two runs are representative (Figure 3):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

As is evident, before the first swap on the graph, Tbottom<\/strong> <\/mark>was increasing at a certain steady pace. After the swap to the hot glass (delineated by the purple vertical line), the rate of increase rapidly shot up. Once swapped back to the cool glass (delineated by the gray vertical line), Tbottom<\/strong><\/mark> stabilized around 108\u00baC. It remained there for ~5 minutes, after which another swap caused it to increase rapidly again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is notable that at the exact moment of the swaps, the net infrared radiation Net IR<\/mark><\/strong> picked up by the pyrgeometer remains negative yet increases. That is, the bottom\u2019s radiative cooling is measurably lessened as a result of this swap.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To rule out differences between the two glass plates, such as the possibility of slightly more solar insolation which could cause a temperature change, I did two swaps with both glass plates at around the same temperature. With these swaps, no difference was observed in the evolution of Tbottom<\/strong><\/mark> or in the Net IR<\/mark>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Confirming the Radiative Nature of the Effect<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

It is important to rule out any convective effects as having caused the increase. The hotter glass will, of course, heat the air around it as well. How do we know that Tbottom<\/strong><\/mark> didn\u2019t get hotter because the hotter glass heated the air in-between, which then heated the thin plastic films, which then reduced the convective loss of the bottom and caused its temperature to increase?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The evidence is three-fold. First, we can observe that Tlowair<\/strong><\/mark> did not noticeably increase as a result of the swap. Indeed, it was warmer before the swap than after (Figure 4):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Second, by including\u00a0Tthin1<\/strong><\/mark>\u00a0and\u00a0Tthin2<\/strong>\u00a0<\/mark>in the graph, we can see that\u00a0Tbottom<\/strong><\/mark>\u00a0increased\u00a0first<\/strong>, and only nearly half a minute later did Tthin1 start to increase, soon after which\u00a0Tthin2<\/strong><\/mark>\u00a0increased as well (Figure 5). Thus the temperature increase started from bottom to top, not from top to bottom, meaning the observed increase could not be due to the air being heated from the top.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Third, I repeated the experiments, but with a thin borosilicate plate mounted in the middle of the apparatus (Figure 6). Borosilicate is highly absorbent of infrared radiation. If the effect is radiative, we would expect the borosilicate to absorb any extra thermal radiation from the hotter glass, preventing Tbottom<\/strong><\/mark> from increasing. This is precisely what happened. During these runs, the Net IR<\/strong><\/mark> did not change when the hotter glass was swapped in, nor did Tbottom<\/strong><\/mark> respond to the swaps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus we have to conclude that the increased thermal radiation from the hotter glass is what caused the bottom to increase in temperature, even though the hotter glass itself was much cooler than the bottom.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Analysis<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

How does this not violate the laws of thermodynamics, wherein heat only flows from hot to cold? The answer is that one must consider all the heat flows in the system. When Tbottom<\/strong><\/mark> is at a steady temperature around 108\u00baC, it is because the amount of heat it is gaining from all sources is equal to the amount of heat it is losing to all sinks. At that temperature, the only heat it is gaining is from the sunlight, which is actually the thermal radiation emanating from our nearby star with its surface temperature of 5900K. It is at the same time losing heat conductively with the bottom of the hotbox and the walls, convectively with the air in the box, and radiatively with the plastic wrap layers, the glass, and the sky above. The hotbox itself is also losing heat convectively with the outside air.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the hotter glass is swapped in, effectively the only change is that now the bottom<\/strong><\/mark> is losing less heat radiatively to the glass. With all else being equal, it is thus now gaining more heat from the sunlight than it is losing to all other sources, and the result is an increase in temperature. Notably, without the much hotter sun as a heat source, the increase in temperature would not be observed; only a reduced cooling effect would occur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

There are several key differences between the experiment performed here and the theorized radiative greenhouse effect, such that this experiment does not serve as verification of the latter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. The hotbox is heavily insulated and enclosed to suppress convective heat loss. By contrast, the majority of the heat loss by the Earth\u2019s surface is due to convective loss to the air.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. The temperature ranges are different, with the Earth\u2019s surface being around 15\u00baC and the air ranging from 15\u00baC to -55\u00baC with increasing altitude, contrasted with 100\u00baC for the black bottom and 30-70\u00baC for the glass.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. The colder object is a solid plate of glass as opposed to a column of atmospheric air, i.e. a large volume of gas.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. The warmer object is a uniform pitch-black plate, as distinct from the Earth\u2019s surface with its varied terrain, soil, plant, foliage, ice, snow, water, etc.\u00a0<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. The greenhouse effect is due to the air becoming more absorbent of and emissive of thermal radiation at the same temperature, while the experimental result was due to the colder object retaining the same emissive properties yet becoming hotter.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. The observed time duration was minimal and no conclusions can be drawn about the total magnitude of the effect or what effects it may have in the long run.

    Indeed, the greenhouse effect theory has a large gap when it comes to the empirical demonstration of the greenhouse effect\u2019s total effect on surface temperatures. It largely relies on a simplified calculation that shows the Earth\u2019s average temperature would be -18\u00baC without any atmosphere. This calculation even includes the albedo effect of clouds, which would not be present without an atmosphere. Further it ignores all the distinctions listed above, and doesn\u2019t account for the adiabatic lapse rate, which is the main reason why the bottom of the grand canyon is +50\u00baC warmer on average than the peak of Mount Everest. Such a lapse rate occurs entirely due to non-radiative effects, and therefore would have some effect even if the air were fully transparent to infrared radiation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. The observed temperature increase here was due to swapping in a hotter glass plate that was externally heated by another heat source (i.e. neither the sun nor the black bottom). This is in contrast with the greenhouse effect, where the atmosphere\u2019s thermal radiation that is theorized to result in a much warmer surface temperature, is initially warmed by the surface itself. This gives the appearance that it presents a situation where an object is able to heat itself up with its own heat \u2013 first the atmosphere at the same temperature emits thermal radiation according to its own temperature, which then results in a warmer surface, that then in turn heats the atmosphere further, etc., in a (diminishing) feedback loop.

    Although the experiment performed here indicates that the presence of the sun ought to make this possible, and Infrared Halogens\u00a0appear to exploit an analogous mechanism<\/a>\u00a0to reduce energy consumption, an experiment should be done to confirm this is the case. It is notable that past experiments have failed to definitively show a powerful effect:\u00a0R W Wood\u2019s 1909 experiment<\/a>\u00a0showed\u00a0\u201cscarcely a difference of one degree\u201d<\/em>\u00a0between two hotboxes, one with a radiatively-absorbent glass lid and one with a radiatively-transparent rock salt lid, where we would expect the radiatively-absorbent lid to result in a much hotter temperature due its higher radiative emissions as well. More recently, a\u00a0re-do of Wood\u2019s experiment<\/a>\u00a0\u201cperformed more carefully\u201d<\/em>\u00a0by Pratt actually replicated the result, despite being heavily critical of Wood: a difference of 1.1\u00baC between the floor of a hotbox with a glass lid vs one with a rock salt lid. Pratt further showed that the glass lid was actually 6.2\u00baC hotter than the rock salt lid. This further complicates the analysis as convective heat transfer is proportional to temperature difference and indicates the +1.1\u00baC result is at least in part due to reduction of convective heat loss.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  8. Finally, even if the basic greenhouse effect were to be conclusively demonstrated, it is well-known that the current levels of CO2 are already saturated with regards to higher concentrations causing higher thermal emissions. The enhanced greenhouse effect is said to occur due to the much colder higher-altitude layers of the atmosphere absorbing and emitting more thermal radiation, thus having\u00a0a cascading effect on the air immediately below it<\/a>, which in turn has an effect on the air below, and so on up to the surface. In other words, the hotter absorbing element in the enhanced greenhouse effect is also atmospheric air, and not a solid object. This provides further complications as atmospheric air can freely travel vertically up and down, and hot air tends to expand and rise.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    In conclusion, although the thermodynamic possibility of colder objects causing warmer objects to increase in temperature has finally been conclusively demonstrated, a lack of experimental verification of other facets of the greenhouse effect theory warrants caution before accepting its conclusions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    It is experimentally shown that the thermal radiation from a transparent, colder solid has the capacity to influence a solid warmer than it to become even warmer, under the right circumstances. This dispels the critique of the greenhouse effect that, as heat only flows from hot to cold, the effect is thermodynamically impossible. Even so, significant portions of the theory of the greenhouse effect remain experimentally unproven, signaling caution rather than uncritical acceptance of the theory.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":338226,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691829939,691820486,691829940,691818296,691829884,691827385],"class_list":{"0":"post-338213","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-atmospheric-physics","9":"tag-cooling-effect","10":"tag-de-saussure-style-hotbox","11":"tag-greenhouse-effect","12":"tag-thermal-radiation","13":"tag-warming-effect","15":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0thumb-1920-1010552.jpg?fit=1920%2C1080&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1pZ3","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":393075,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=393075","url_meta":{"origin":338213,"position":0},"title":"Why Current GHG Effect is Simply Not\u00a0Scary","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/08\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The widespread explanations of the greenhouse effect taught to millions of schoolchildren are misleading. The objective of this work is to clarify how increasing CO2 produces warming in current times. It is found that there are two contexts for the greenhouse gas effect.","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AQPrHUoHmDf97P0mkTvoSxmm5WGMxGsQsnHp9BF5pYUk2SiHaylbzRLjxZrfvoPOEip6QHg3qMVg1ZSr-vG86X2TXW2PlkjJuhttdRv8zK-WGnQ_pYOCWK-68alF5kYqO-18NEflStwduRjwIJmK728cx4QJYw.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AQPrHUoHmDf97P0mkTvoSxmm5WGMxGsQsnHp9BF5pYUk2SiHaylbzRLjxZrfvoPOEip6QHg3qMVg1ZSr-vG86X2TXW2PlkjJuhttdRv8zK-WGnQ_pYOCWK-68alF5kYqO-18NEflStwduRjwIJmK728cx4QJYw.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AQPrHUoHmDf97P0mkTvoSxmm5WGMxGsQsnHp9BF5pYUk2SiHaylbzRLjxZrfvoPOEip6QHg3qMVg1ZSr-vG86X2TXW2PlkjJuhttdRv8zK-WGnQ_pYOCWK-68alF5kYqO-18NEflStwduRjwIJmK728cx4QJYw.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AQPrHUoHmDf97P0mkTvoSxmm5WGMxGsQsnHp9BF5pYUk2SiHaylbzRLjxZrfvoPOEip6QHg3qMVg1ZSr-vG86X2TXW2PlkjJuhttdRv8zK-WGnQ_pYOCWK-68alF5kYqO-18NEflStwduRjwIJmK728cx4QJYw.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AQPrHUoHmDf97P0mkTvoSxmm5WGMxGsQsnHp9BF5pYUk2SiHaylbzRLjxZrfvoPOEip6QHg3qMVg1ZSr-vG86X2TXW2PlkjJuhttdRv8zK-WGnQ_pYOCWK-68alF5kYqO-18NEflStwduRjwIJmK728cx4QJYw.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":211221,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=211221","url_meta":{"origin":338213,"position":1},"title":"\u2018Greenhouse Gas Effect Does Not Exist,\u2019 a Swiss Physicist Challenges Global Warming Climate Orthodoxy","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"31\/07\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"By\u00a0Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. Thomas Allmendinger, an\u00a0independent\u00a0Swiss physicist, has conducted a series of experiments published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that call into question the physical principles of the greenhouse gas theory.\u00a0 Thomas Allmendinger, an independent scholar educated at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, has dared to challenge\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/00hill_light_sun_tree_green_grass_summer_evening_serenity_62298_1920x1080.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/00hill_light_sun_tree_green_grass_summer_evening_serenity_62298_1920x1080.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/00hill_light_sun_tree_green_grass_summer_evening_serenity_62298_1920x1080.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/00hill_light_sun_tree_green_grass_summer_evening_serenity_62298_1920x1080.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/00hill_light_sun_tree_green_grass_summer_evening_serenity_62298_1920x1080.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":306512,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=306512","url_meta":{"origin":338213,"position":2},"title":"Climate Model Bias 4: Convection and atmospheric circulation","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"08\/03\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"A likely amplifying mechanism is Earth\u2019s convection and atmospheric circulation system. This post examines that idea. It is yet another important idea that the IPCC and AR6 ignore and brush away as unimportant, vis-\u00e0-vis global warming.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/image-84.png?fit=1200%2C924&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/image-84.png?fit=1200%2C924&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/image-84.png?fit=1200%2C924&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/image-84.png?fit=1200%2C924&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/image-84.png?fit=1200%2C924&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":369201,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=369201","url_meta":{"origin":338213,"position":3},"title":"Energy Imbalance Part II \u2013 An Addendum","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/03\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"First, there was some question about what a radiometer would see if pointed down at the surface. Figure 1 is educational in several ways. It is from the SURFRAD site at Desert Rock, Nevada on June 22, 2024. The four curves correspond to total downward solar radiation, total upward solar\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Atmosphere\"","block_context":{"text":"Atmosphere","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=atmosphere"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0-Energy-Imbalance.jpeg?fit=1200%2C818&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0-Energy-Imbalance.jpeg?fit=1200%2C818&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0-Energy-Imbalance.jpeg?fit=1200%2C818&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0-Energy-Imbalance.jpeg?fit=1200%2C818&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0-Energy-Imbalance.jpeg?fit=1200%2C818&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":363125,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=363125","url_meta":{"origin":338213,"position":4},"title":"Greenhouse Efficiency Insights","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"23\/01\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Abstract:\u00a0Using the CERES satellite data, it is shown that over the last ~ quarter century, the increase in greenhouse gases has had\u00a0no detectable effect\u00a0on the global average surface temperature. On the contrary, the overall increase in available solar energy after albedo reflections is shown to be sufficient to explain the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Clouds\"","block_context":{"text":"Clouds","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=clouds"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/image-667.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/image-667.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/image-667.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/image-667.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":217020,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=217020","url_meta":{"origin":338213,"position":5},"title":"Greenhouse Efficiency","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/09\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"We know the earth is warmer than expected. Nobody has ever come up with an explanation for that except the greenhouse effect.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-136.png?fit=1200%2C704&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-136.png?fit=1200%2C704&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-136.png?fit=1200%2C704&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-136.png?fit=1200%2C704&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-136.png?fit=1200%2C704&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/338213","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=338213"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/338213\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":338228,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/338213\/revisions\/338228"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/338226"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=338213"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=338213"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=338213"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}