Changes

Nils Ekholm, an associate of Arrhenius, had an answer to Ångström's point about saturation.<ref>Ekholm, Nils, "On the Variations of the Geological and Historical Past their Causes, ''Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society,'' January 1901. DOI: 10.1002/qj.49702711702.</ref> Ångström's tube was saturated because it was at ground level. High enough in the atmosphere, there must be an unsaturated layer of carbon dioxide capable of absorbing radiation. The greater the density of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the lower this layer would be. A lower layer would retransmit more radiation to the lower atmosphere and would therefore be responsible for greater warming. Ekholm's insight was lost on his fellow scientists. It was not rediscovered until the 1960s.<ref>"The Surface budget fallacy," ''The Warming Papers'', pp. 79-80.</ref>

Nils Ekholm, an associate of Arrhenius, had an answer to Ångström's point about saturation.<ref>Ekholm, Nils, "On the Variations of the Geological and Historical Past their Causes, ''Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society,'' January 1901. DOI: 10.1002/qj.49702711702.</ref> Ångström's tube was saturated because it was at ground level. High enough in the atmosphere, there must be an unsaturated layer of carbon dioxide capable of absorbing radiation. The greater the density of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the lower this layer would be. A lower layer would retransmit more radiation to the lower atmosphere and would therefore be responsible for greater warming. Ekholm's insight was lost on his fellow scientists. It was not rediscovered until the 1960s.<ref>"The Surface budget fallacy," ''The Warming Papers'', pp. 79-80.</ref>

As for Ångström's point concerning water vapor, Arrhenius insisted that CO₂ rose higher in the atmosphere than water vapor could, so water vapor was not relevant. This argument never caught on. The idea that adding CO₂ would change the climate, "was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO₂ is [already] absorbed by water vapor," the American Meteorological Society concluded in 1951.<ref>American Meteorological Society, ''1951 Compendium of Meteorology''.</ref> Despite Ångström's debunking of his theory, Arrhenius won the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1903 for unrelated research. The Ångströms, meanwhile, are remembered for a miniscule unit of length named after Anders Ångström, Knut's dad.

As for Ångström's point concerning water vapor, Arrhenius insisted that CO₂ rose higher in the atmosphere than water vapor could, so water vapor was not relevant. This argument never caught on. The idea that adding CO₂ would change the climate, "was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO₂ is [already] absorbed by water vapor," the American Meteorological Society concluded in 1951.<ref>American Meteorological Society, ''[https://www.questia.com/read/97549786/compendium-of-meteorology 1951 Compendium of Meteorology]'', p. 1016.</ref> Despite Ångström's debunking of his theory, Arrhenius won the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1903 for unrelated research. The Ångströms, meanwhile, are remembered for a miniscule unit of length named after Anders Ångström, Knut's dad.

Finally performing the experiment Fourier had recommended a century earlier, Robert Wood showed in 1909 that energy is transferred from the Earth's surface to the atmosphere primarily through "convection currents." In Wood's experiment, the temperature in a glass box was compared that in a box with a top made of halite (rock salt). Halite allows sunlight to enter, but blocks infrared. Infrared re-radiation and the greenhouse effect play "a very small part," both in the atmosphere and in literal greenhouses, Wood concluded.<ref>Wood, Robert, "[http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Note_on_the_Theory_of_the_Greenhouse.pdf Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse]", ''Philosphical Magazine'', January—June 1909.<br/>"[http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.jp/2010/06/greenhouse-theory-disproven-in-1909.html Greenhouse Theory disproven in 1909, 1963, 1966, 1973...but still refuses to die]," June 28, 2010.<br/>Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, "[https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO₂ Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics]"</ref> A greenhouse is warmer because the roof limits convection and the walls restrict wind. "The acquired heat is concentrated, because it is not dissipated immediately by renewing the air," as Fourier himself explained.<ref name="Fourier" />

Finally performing the experiment Fourier had recommended a century earlier, Robert Wood showed in 1909 that energy is transferred from the Earth's surface to the atmosphere primarily through "convection currents." In Wood's experiment, the temperature in a glass box was compared that in a box with a top made of halite (rock salt). Halite allows sunlight to enter, but blocks infrared. Infrared re-radiation and the greenhouse effect play "a very small part," both in the atmosphere and in literal greenhouses, Wood concluded.<ref>Wood, Robert, "[http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Note_on_the_Theory_of_the_Greenhouse.pdf Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse]", ''Philosphical Magazine'', January—June 1909.<br/>"[http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.jp/2010/06/greenhouse-theory-disproven-in-1909.html Greenhouse Theory disproven in 1909, 1963, 1966, 1973...but still refuses to die]," June 28, 2010.<br/>Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, "[https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO₂ Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics]"</ref> A greenhouse is warmer because the roof limits convection and the walls restrict wind. "The acquired heat is concentrated, because it is not dissipated immediately by renewing the air," as Fourier himself explained.<ref name="Fourier" />