Talk:Greenhouse effect

Would “block” work better than “trap” in the first sentence?
Not wanting to restart a long discussion but I only just saw the discussion above and @Rhwentworths interesting point about some people thinking that something is permanently trapped within the CO2 molecule.

Would “block” work better than “trap” in the first sentence or would that just lead to some other misunderstanding do you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Block has it's own problems, like it implies a wall that completely stops progress. Trap is commonly used in government sources and educational materials and is arguably more accurate, as ghg molecules absorb heat radiation. I don't see value in revisiting this. Efbrazil (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Efbrazil's comment. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting thought... and, I don't think substituting "block" for "trap" without further word-smithing would improve matters.
 * I think that, ideally, language would have the following properties:
 * Clarifies that what is happening is a reduction in heat flow, not something that is all-or-nothing
 * Doesn't suggest heat being "stuck" anywhere, and especially not in CO2 molecules or air
 * Doesn't encourage the misunderstanding that time delays are involved
 * Doesn't encourage the idea that the GHE is mainly about what happens at the surface, rather than being ultimately about energy-balance at the top of the atmosphere
 * Is accessible due to either widely-used language or being very clear
 * Doesn't convince people they "understand" when they're actually locking on to a false interpretation
 * Compatible with what is described in primary sources
 * Concise and clear
 * These criteria are in tension with one another. Unfortunately, I don't see a simple solution. It's a tricky issue in general, and the constraints of Wikipedia make it even trickier.
 * "partially block" is better than "block" because of the all-or-nothing issue.
 * I'm noticing that "trapping" plays into the idea of "heat" as being a thing that be just be somewhere (which is the popular notion of heat, but NOT the technical notion of heat), while "block" is relevant to the notion of "heat" involving energy in motion (which is the technical notion). But, you can't just say "partially block heat" because most people don't understand that technically, "heat" inherently refers to energy in motion; so, you need to refer to something like blocking "heat flow" or "heat loss."
 * I imagine there is little enthusiasm for further rewriting. But, just to think it through, how could one in principle tweak "The greenhouse effect occurs when greenhouse gases in a planet's atmosphere trap some of the heat radiated from the planet's surface."? Maybe the final part of the sentence could be something like:
 * "...partially block the flow of heat radiated from the planet's surface."
 * "...inhibit the flow..." / "...constrict the flow..." / "...reduce the flow..." / "...impede the flow..."
 * Unless wording like that stimulates excitement in an editor, this probably won't go anywhere in practice. Rhwentworth (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that both "block" have "trap" misleading implications, even though they're commonly used in explanations. A more precise description might be something like:
 * Gaseous carbon compounds (such as CO2) in the atmosphere inhibit excess surface heat from radiating into space. A high level of such compounds can result in a cumulative build-up of heat (from sunlight) primarily in the oceans; this is what is meant by CO2 trapping heat.
 * I hope this can be clarified further for a non-technical audience. Martin Kealey (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we should phrase proposals as a difference from what's there now. We also need to keep the lead accessible and avoid technical wording there.
 * While I'm fine with keeping things as they are, I wouldn't be opposed to a change from trap to insulate. For instance, this change would be fine by me:
 * The greenhouse effect occurs when greenhouse gases in a planet's atmosphere trap some of the heat radiated from the planet's surface insulate the planet's surface from losing heat to space, raising its temperature. This process happens because stars emit shortwave radiation that passes through greenhouse gases, but planets emit longwave radiation that is partly absorbed by greenhouse gases. That difference reduces the rate at which a planet can cool off in response to being warmed by its host star. Adding to greenhouse gases further reduces the rate a planet emits radiation to space, raising its average surface temperature. Efbrazil (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the word "insulate" comes with its own set of problems. I think it's unclear and it makes me think of the insulation layers we put around our houses in the Northern hemisphere to reduce our heating costs. I guess others (perhaps in children's books) have talked about "a blanket" that is wrapped around Earth and causes Earth to heat up. Perhaps a similar concept to "insulate". Not sure. EMsmile (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Insulation is a material that reduces the pass through of heat or sound or electricity. A gas can be an insulator. A blanket is just a type of insulation. I like the insulate word as it paints a better mental model than the word "trap".
 * Do you have a different idea for wording? If not, do you prefer the trap wording or the insulate wording? Efbrazil (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I have no strong view on this and am happy to follow your lead. Happy to change to insulate if you feel that it works better than trap or block? EMsmile (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems the paragraph "Effect on surface cooling: .... effect of greenhouse gases." needs elaboration
So that for a layman like me can better understand. Can anybody help? Thanks. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty vague complaint. Generally if you are confused by something on wikipedia the best thing to do is to follow the references or google the topic, develop an understanding of the issue yourself, then update the wikipedia page to help others with the confusion you were having. Efbrazil (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Efbrazil in theory I agree with you but in practice I think we cannot expect all Wikipedia editors to upskill themselves and fully understand the science on everything. I think ThomasYehYeh's work is useful: As far as I know they are translating English articles to Chinese and in the process they point out sentences that are too hard to understand. The person who wrote the sentence in question (or anyone else with a good understanding of the topic), in this case User:Rhwentworth might then be prompted to take another look and improve the reading ease. In this case, I think this sentence ought to be simplified and made easier to understand: Latent heat transport and thermals provide non-radiative surface cooling which partially compensates for this reduction, but there is still a net reduction in surface cooling, for a given surface temperature.. EMsmile (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way, I used the readability tool (in the tools section on the right side) for this article and it's not too bad: not too many sentences come up in red. The Flesch reading score comes up as 40.82 which is surprisingly good for a technical article. EMsmile (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, well said on both your comments. Two points. First, this is quite a ways down in the article, and we've already presented simpler explanations earlier on, so I think it is OK to be more technical here. Second, I personally don't find the sentence confusing, so it's hard for me to fix it. Here is a rewording, but I don't know that it's better:
 * Heat transfer away from Earth's surface also happens through conduction and convection, but by absorbing radiation the net effect of Earth's atmosphere is to warm the surface. Efbrazil (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Do GHGs "intercept" outgoing radiation?
I noticed that two of the image captions use the verb "to intercept" ("GHGs intercept outgoing radiation"). Is this a suitable verb and if so, should we also use it in the main text? Or, if we don't use it in the main text, should we change it in the captions? Maybe rather "interact with" or "block"? I think elsewhere we have used the verbs "to block" or "to trap". EMsmile (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * We bounce around on wording because there's no ideal way to say things. The correct way is too long: GHGs absorb infrared radiation, then the heat is transferred into the atmosphere, then the atmosphere reemits infrared in all directions, which includes back downwards towards Earth's surface, keeping it warmer than it would be otherwise. I would not mess much with the wording that is there right now.
 * Also, the comment on my last edit on the page got cut off. What I meant to say is that infrared radiation isn't a process, it's a thing. In general, please try to be more careful when you split sentences. Consider condensing sentences instead of splitting them, and try reading the content out loud to yourself before saving any changes. Efbrazil (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * yes, but I think for laypersons it's confusing if we keep using different terminology. Why use "to intercept" in the two image captions but not in the main text? I think it's better to be consistent and use the same terminology throughout, not bounce around. As a layperson one thinks that a different term means something else.
 * Regarding this sentence, which I had split into two rather than using the bit in brackets: In contrast, Earth's surface has a much lower temperature, so it emits longwave radiation at mid- and far-infrared wavelengths (also called thermal radiation or radiated heat). I don't think it's clear to a layperson what exactly is called "radiated heat". Also why do we think we need to tell people (in the lead) about this alternative scientific term? I suggest to either drop the part in brackets completely or to move it into a separate sentence. Let's not overload people with too much technical jargon in the lead.
 * Note that "radiated heat" is not mentioned a second anywhere in the article so it is really important to mention it in the lead? EMsmile (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I removed the parenthetical. What we had there was also incorrect as well, as all thermal radiation is heat radiation, including sunlight. Rhwentworth will be pleased.
 * My main concern with the removal was not having an accessible term for describing what the Earth's surface emits. I think "radiated heat" is most intuitive, but of course it's not technically accurate. We do talk about heat radiation a few times in the article, search on radiation heat flow and radiant heat and radiative heat.
 * To make up for the loss of accessibility I added a sentence describing what thermal radiation is. Hopefully that helps. It's a sticky wicket. Efbrazil (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As for the issue of "intercept", I think it's fine to change those two instances to "absorb" if you want. They mean the same thing to me in that context, so I am not too fussed about it either way. Efbrazil (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's good. I've replaced "intercept" with "absorb" now, in the two places where it occurred (even though I am not sure if this is technically correct).
 * The lead now reads quite well. The readability script also says so: no sentences in dark red and only one in light red (this one but I think it's fairly clear as it is (probably the algorithm doesn't like all the multi-syllable words here...): All objects with a temperature above absolute zero emit thermal radiation.). EMsmile (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Simplified caption for first image?
I don't see why we need to effectively repeat the text inside the first image as the caption for that image. That's particularly true as the first paragraph of the article is also a synopsis of the greenhouse effect. Here is how things currently appear:

What I would like to do is change the caption to something brief and informative, as shown here:



Thoughts, particularly RCraig09? Efbrazil (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Option B is not informative at all; it's essentially a criticism of the chart itself. Option A is noticeably more concise than the lead's text. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The main point is that it is redundant with the text in the image itself. The image text says this:
 * Some sunlight that hits Earth is reflected back into space, while the rest becomes heat. Greenhouse gases absorb and redirect heat radiated by Earth, insulating it from heat loss to space.
 * This caption is really redundant with that:
 * the greenhouse effect occurs when greenhouse gases first allow sunlight to pass through the atmosphere and heat the planet, but then absorb and redirect some of the outgoing longwave radiation (heat) that the planet emits.
 * The caption I offered wasn't meant as a critique, just a pointer to other image people might find useful for showing how the greenhouse effect works. I'd also be fine just saying "Simplified diagram of how the greenhouse effect works", or other suggestions that aren't redundant. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Option A is reader-centric but Option B is editor-centric. Although Option A tells the story sequentially and I favor it over Option B which points lay readers to the bowels of Commons, ...we could have NO caption for that particular graphic. That would work for me. — RCraig09 (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool, no caption works for me! I'll make the edit... Efbrazil (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Greenhouse-effect-t2.svg that results when sunlight heats the Earth's surface. Three important greenhouse gases are shown symbolically in this image: carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane.]]
 * Hmmm, I don't know but I think I'd prefer an image caption. I quite liked Option B, actually. The wikilink for "other options" could go somewhere else as well (but I don't mind if it goes to Commons). But I also wonder if that chosen image is really suitable. Compare with the lead image at greenhouse gas (on the right) which I think is a lot better. Wondering if we should maybe use the same image here (even though I usually argue that the lead image should be unique for each Wikipedia article). Just putting out some food for thought. EMsmile (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Greenhouse-effect.svg
 * I was also looking for a good symbolic image for the German Wikipedia to visualize the greenhouse effect. I did not find one, so I created a new image. I had the idea that maybe the difference between the presence of and the absence of greenhouse gases could be a good visual way to explain the effect. In the German article I have added a caption with 3 sentences to describe each of the 3 sections. But the image is also self-explanatory and could work without captions. Physikinger (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but this image is confusing for the casual viewer-- so many arrows! Only one sun?  Two planets or three?  Also, it hurts my eyes.  The current image has a lot of text. Text is for article content, not so much images. I created the image mentioned by EMsmile. I did my best to make it visually interesting, informative, and easily grasped with a minimum of text.  I am also biased against renditions of the sun as a golden marble, and against depictions of Earth as having sapphire blue oceans and emerald green continents everywhere. Lastly, the red arrows are "bouncing" off of nothing in that image. Why not show them bouncing off of molecules in the air, the way they actually are?   A loose necktie (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all, I really like your picture. It's a very nice and inspiring SVG artwork, and I'm using it as well in the German greenhouse effect Wikipedia article. But there are some points why I decided not to use it as the thumbnail image of the article:
 * The molecules and text are so small that I found it less suitable as a symbolic thumbnail, which appears quite small in Google searches and when hovering over wiki links.
 * There was also a discussion about a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8 about a common misconception that heat radiation does not bounce between the sky and the ground, but rather most of the time between molecules. It's more a diffusive energy transport.
 * In many drawings like yours, the atmosphere is shown as a layer like the roof of a greenhouse, which gives a false impression.
 * With my image I tried to improve these points. I don't really understand your criticism. It's primarily a symbolic image, trying to convey an abstract idea of what the essence of the effect is. With the arrows I am trying to express that the mean free paths are very short in the presence of the greenhouse gases and that the surface cooling becomes less efficient.
 * But don't get me wrong. I don't want to convince anyone to use my image. I just wanted to give a hint that there is another drawing. Physikinger (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2024
The scientific errors are numerous, based In part on outdated information from the early 19th Century, and a lack of knowledge of more recent theoretical and experimental work up to the modern experiments done at CERN Lab's CLOUD Project in Geneva Switzerland.

Past errors. In 1829 Fourier published his Greenhouse Theory based upon his incorrect understanding of how a greenhouse works. As we know a greenhouse is a box in which air is trapped. As it absorbs the sun's heat (in the form of infrared radiation (IR)), the warmed air is prevented from rising up into the sky (as a hot air balloon does), keeping the interior of the greenhouse warmer than the outside air. Fourie, however, believed that glass blocked out infrared radiation. This is an idiocy as Herschel discovered IR by using a glass prism to separate the IR from the visible light, allowing him to separately measure it and prove its existence. If glass blocked IR then Herschel would never have measured it. Fourie never realized that Herschel's use of a glass prison to separate out IR proved that glass did not block IR. Thus, he asked himself Why does a greenhouse get warm if the Sun's IR cannot pass through the glass? He falsely held that short-wave radiation (visible light) must be changing into IR when it strikes the interior of the greenhouse. As he believed that IR cannot pass through the glass, it becomes trapped inside the greenhouse and thus warms the greenhouse interior.

This belief in visible light changing into IR continued until modern times until NASA satellite measurements showed that the IR radiation emanating off the Earth's surface was equal in wavelength and amplitude to that measured by NASA ground stations as hitting the Earth's surface. There is no more heat leaving the earth than is arriving. If Visible light was changing into IR then, given that on average a visible light photon has 1,000 times more energy than the average IR photon, there must be at least 1,000 times more heat leaving the earth than arriving at its surface, and this is not happening.

In 1856, Eunice Foote tested the interaction of rarified air, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and moist air with the Sun's heat.

Identical glass bottles were filled with a mercury thermometer, and with as pure a gas as possible for her to make. The bottles were placed in the direct light of the sun and the temperatures of the gases were measured by her.

Her measurements showed little to no effect on the temperature of the non-thermally reactive gases, the hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, but she noted a significant rise in the moist air and a greater rise in the carbon dioxide's temperature. This experiment showed that the Sun's IR heat passed unaffected through the hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen gas, but that the water vapor and Carbon Dioxide prevented some of the Sun's IR heat from passing through them. Some of the Sun's IR heat was trapped inside the bottle, reducing the amount of heat that passed out of the bottle towards the table below reducing its temperature.

Forty years later in his paper "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground" [Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276]. Svante Arrhenius presents his calculations of the effect of CO2 and water vapor on IR radiation. He writes on page 240: “The intensity of radiation for any group of rays should always diminish with increasing quantity(emphasis mine), of aqueous vapour or carbonic acid traversed''.” While on page 244 of the work he gives his exacting calculations writing: “If a ray of heat, corresponding to the angle of deviation 39 degrees 45 minutes passes through the unit of carbonic acid, it decreases in intensity in the proportion 1: 0.934 (log= -0.0296), the corresponding value for the unit of water-vapour is 1: 0.775 (log= -0.11105).” Over the next 67 years, Gilbert Plass, Kondrat'ev, Kaplan, Sasamori, Yamamoto, and Fritz Moller, experimentally tested Arrhenius calculations and found them to be correct. In Moller's work entitled; "On the Influence of Changes in the Carbon Dioxide Concentration in Air on the Radiation Balance of the Earth’s Surface and on the Climate” [Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 68, Number 31, July 1, 1963]. In Table One, Moller charts his experimental findings and those of Plass, Kondrat'ev, Kaplan, Sasamori, and Yamamoto.

Plass's experiments showed that when he reduced the CO2 concentration in his test chamber from 300 ppm to 150 ppm, the heat emanating from the earth below the test chamber rose 12.5 mcal/cm2. When it was increased from 300 ppm to 600 ppm the heat radiating off the earth below the test chamber fell -11.9 mcal/cm2. The same results were shown by Kaplan, Kondrat'ev, Yamamoto, and Sasamori.

Unlike Foote, however, these tests showed the effect of Water Vapor was far higher than CO2's effect on IR. This is in agreement with Arrhenius's calculation of a larger effect than CO2 on IR.

I cannot download the table referenced, so you will have to google the paper for yourself.

Since 2012 CERN Labs in Geneva Switzerland has been using their Proton Synchrotron to do atmospheric tests to determine the effect of Cosmic Radiation on Cloud formation, leading to changes in the downward flow of Sun IR heat.

The IPCC in its first report on CO2's effect on Earth's surface temperature, stated that 1.4 watts per meter squared of heat since the end of the Little Ice Age and the beginning of the Industrial Revolution could not be explained by those factors then proven to affect Earth's temperature and so must be caused by the increases in the CO2 concentrations since them. This claim ignored all scientific research in atmospheric done since the publication of Arrhenius' work.

CERN reports that its experiments have proven that 1.2 watts per meter squared of the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age and the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was caused by changes in cloud cover due to changes in the Cosmic Radiation entering the Earth's upper atmosphere, not by CO2. CERN has firmly established that Comsic Radiation is the leading factor in Earth's surface Temperature.

CERN's experiments show that increased levels of cosmic radiation in the upper atmosphere lead to significant increases in cloud formation and an increase in their whiteness, and fluffiness blocking out more Sun heat and cooling the Earth.

The Sun's magnetosphere is the primary protector of the Earth from cosmic radiation. When the Sun enters a Solar Minimum, (like the Little Ice Age), its magnetosphere weakens and allows more cosmic radiation into the upper atmosphere where it seeds clouds. Conversely, when the Sun exits a Solar Minimum, its magnetosphere increases in strength lessening the cosmic radiation able to enter the upper atmosphere. This drop in cosmic radiation leads to fewer clouds that are less white and fluffy and so more Sun heat reaches the Earth.

The entire idea of man-made climate change is based upon the false belief that there is more IR heat leaving the Earth than is arriving, due to the false belief that visible light is changing into IR heat.

In addition, early Natural Philosophers, like Arrhenius, believed that the IR portion of the Sun was minuscule compared to the visible light's portion. Thus, while they understood that the CO2 and water vapor must also be blocking out incoming Sun heat from reaching the Earth cooling it, they felt it was a small effect that could be disregarded when measured against the much greater heat being kept in. Today we know that IR constitutes 52% of the sun's spectrum, and the atmosphere blocks out 174F degrees of Solar heat.

Today, proponents of man-made CO2 warming constantly cite Schwarzchild's Equation as support for their position. Scharzchild's Equation does prove that increased levels of CO2 will make the atmosphere more insulating to outgoing heat, but it also keeps out more Sun heat cooling the Earth.

The Stephan-Boltzmann Law tells us that if CO2 levels rise enough so as to make the atmosphere 1% more insulating, it will both keep in 1% more heat and keep out 1% more heat cooling the Earth by 1%. A 1% drop in Earth's surface temperature due to an increase in the CO2 level in the atmosphere will cause a 4% drop in radiated IR heat off the Earth's surface. Thus the Greenhouse effect will fall by 3%!

The 1% increase in the insulating value of the atmosphere will cause a -4% drop in radiated heat off the Earth's surface, creating a 3% net drop in the Greenhouse Effect cooling the Earth.

We cannot increase the Greenhouse Effect by blocking out more Sun IR heat with higher CO2 concentrations. That would lessen the Earth's surface Tempeartuer as Arrhenius calculated and Plas and the others proved experimentally.

NASA has also proven this heat blocking is occurring further supporting Arrhenius. As CO2 levels in the troposphere have increased in the decades past, NASA satellites have measured an increase in the temperature of the Troposphere. The Troposphere is absorbing more Sun IR heat and preventing it from reaching the Earth below.

Arrhenius was correct in saying that more CO2 or water vapor will keep out more Sun heat. All those claiming man-made greenhouse warming do so by refusing to face experimental results showing CO2 keeps out Sun heat and cools the earth.

It is 250 Degrees above the atmosphere, while only 76.4 degrees average temperature below it. This is undeniable, the "greenhouse gases" cool the Earth by 174 degrees! This cooling would be impossible if man-made CO2 warming was real. The Earth's temperature would be greater than the total amount of heat the Earth receives from the Sun if the CO2 climate change theory was factual.

It is time to end the political use of Wikipedia and provide the public with the truth, which is why this site exists.Bud Williams (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC) Bud Williams (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)