CHAPTER 5 :THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

FOURIER

The greenhouseeffect is claimed^1,2 to have been suggested in 1824 by Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1768 – 1830)³.

In France in 1801 he did experiments on the propagation of heat. In his 1822 book Théorie Analytique de chaleur^4,5 he postulated that heat transfer in solids varied according to a constant which became known as the thermal conductivity. He described convection in the following terms.

When the heated body is placed in air which is maintained at a sensible constant temperature, the heat communicated to the air makes the layer of the fluid nearest to the surface of the body lighter; this layer rises more quickly the more intensely it is heated, and is replaced by another mass of cool air. A current is thus established in the air whose direction is vertical and whose velocity is greater as the temperature of the body is higher.

He does not mention heat transfer by evaporation of water and the release of latent heat in a cooler region.

Fourier attempted to calculate the temperature of the earth in two publications^6,7.  Casey⁸ has published the English translation of the 1824 paper by Burgess⁹ and an edited version of the paper based on it¹⁰. He has also provided an edited English translation of the 1827 paper¹¹ and useful discussion of the errors and misconceptions which have arisen¹², from which much of the following discussion has been derived. 

Fourier was led to his theory from the experiments of his friend de Saussure with his solar heated hot box, which was a miniature greenhouse¹³.

HORACE-BÉNÉDICT DE SAUSSURE¹⁴  (1740-, 1799)

was a Swiss, physicist who built a solar oven. The increased use of glass during the eighteenth century made many people aware of its ability to trap solar heat. 

De Saussure gave a roundabout opinion of how the sun heats a hotbox as follows¹⁵:

Figure 5.1. De Saussure’s Hotbox          

                                                

Physicists are not unanimous as to the nature of sunlight. Some regard it as the same element as fire, but in the state of its greatest purity. Others envisage it as an entity with a nature completely different from fire, and which, incapable of itself heating, has only the power to give an igneous fluid the movement which produces heat.          
                                       

This statement shows how far away from the concepts of modern science was the current understanding of the atmosphere and climate at the time.

Fourier in his 1824 paper¹⁰(page 154) explained the hot box as follows:

The theory of the instrument is easily understood. It is sufficient to remark, 1st, that the acquired heat is concentrated, because it is not dissipated immediately by renewing the air; 2nd, that the heat of the sun, has properties different from those of heat without light. The rays of that body are transmitted in considerable quantity through the glass plates into all the intervals, even to the bottom of the vessel. They heat the air and the partitions which contain it. Their heat thus communicated ceases to be luminous, and preserves only the properties of non-luminous radiating heat. In this state it cannot pass through the plates of glass covering the vessel. It is accumulated more and more in the interval which is surrounded by substances of small conducting power, and the temperature rises till the heat flowing in, shall exactly equal that which is dissipated

This statement amounts to the following propositions.

The heated air cannot get out (1st proposition).

Most of the sun’s rays (a considerable quantity) is transmitted through the glass.

They go to all parts of the vessel.

The luminous quality of the sun's rays become non luminous heat (infra red).

Non luminous heat cannot pass through plates of glass.

It accumulates until the system is in equilibrium.

He would not have been aware of the discovery in 1850 by Melloni¹⁵ that glass absorbs most low temperature infrared radiation.

Fourier applied this behaviour to the atmosphere as follows (page 165).

The solar heat has accumulated in the interior of the globe, the state of which has become unchangeable. That which penetrates in the equatorial regions is exactly balanced by that which escapes at the parts around the poles. Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.

So he thought that there was no net transfer of heat from the sun to the earth, just a bit more in the tropics, that was balanced by loss at the poles. The temperature of the earth was caused by heat received from outer space. This led him to the view that the temperature of space was only just below that of the poles.

He considered that the extra heat needed was supplied from inside the earth which has accumulated in the interior and is peculiar to itself.

However, when he added this in, it was not enough, so he had to find some extra heat.

Fourier¹⁰ (page 154) reads” 

In short, if all the strata of air of which the atmosphere is formed, preserved their density with their transparency, and lost only the mobility which is peculiar to them, this mass of air, thus become solid, on being exposed to the rays of the sun, would produce an effect the same in kind with that we have just described. The heat, coming in the state of light to the solid earth, would lose all at once, and almost entirely, its power of passing through transparent solids: it would accumulate in the lower strata of the atmosphere, which would thus acquire very high temperatures. We should observe at the same time a diminution of the degree of acquired heat.

So infra red could cause a layer which traps heat just like the glass of de Saussure’s hotbox.

Then he says:          

All the terrestrial effects of solar heat are modified by the interposition of the atmosphere and the presence of water. The great motions of these fluids render the distribution more uniform. The transparency of the waters appears to concur with that of the air in augmenting the degree of heat already acquired, because luminous heat flowing in, penetrates, with little difficulty, the interior of the mass, and non-luminous heat has more difficulty in finding a way out in a contrary direction.

So water vapour is responsible for augmenting the degree of heat already acquired. 

This view was supported by Claude Pouillet  and  John Tyndall, both of whom believed in a warm ether.

CLAUDE POUILLET

Claude Servais Mathias Pouillet¹⁵(February 16, 1791–June 14, 1868) was a French physicist who developed a pyrheliometer and made, between 1837 and 1838, the first quantitative measurements of the Solar constant.

His publication in 1838¹⁶ has been translated into English by Taylor¹⁷

Pouillet accepted the view of Fourier that the earth was warmed above the temperature of the æther  by the absorption of the sun’s rays by the atmosphere. However, by this time, his friend Poisson (the  famous statistical mathematician) had calculated that the upper regions of the atmosphere were much cooler than the aether. He carried out experiments at night with an actinometer, an instrument for measuring radiation and from the results calculated that the temperature of space was -142

JOHN TYNDALL

John Tyndall  (1820 – 1893)¹⁸ was an Irish-born physicist and mathematician who studied in Germany and from 1853 to 1887 was Director of the Royal Institution in London as the immediate successor of Michael Faraday.

For 12 years from 1859 he carried out a series of studies on the passage of low temperature radiation through a number of gases and vapours.¹⁹

Casey has reproduced Tyndall’s Bakerian lecture of 1861 which gives details²⁰. It is also part of his book “Heat as a Mode of Motion.²¹

Tyndall was inspired by the recent experiments of Melloni²² who had studied the infrared behaviour of various gases using a thermomultiplier, a combination of a thermopile and a galvanometer.

Tyndall^21,22 said:

Melloni found that a glass plate one-tenth of an inch in thickness intercepted all the rays emanating  from a source of the temperature of boiling water, and fully 94 percent. of rays from a source of400º Centigrade      Hence a tube closed with glass plates would be scarcely more suitable for the purpose now under consideration, than if its ends were stopped by plates of metal.

De Saussure and Fourier could not have known that glass absorbed most low temperature radiation.

 Tyndall’s equipment is illustrated in Figure 5.2.

A copper cubic container at the right is full of water kept boiling by a flame underneath. The front is coated with lampblack and the radiation passes though a rock salt window and through a brass tube cooled with water. The radiation passes out through another rock salt window and to a double conical device with a thermopile inside it connected to a galvanometer. The tube can be evacuated to give a zero reading for the galvanometer and filled with a gas or vapour to different pressures. Water is circulated around the rock salt to keep it cool. A compensating radiation source is at the far end to enable setting the zero on the galvanometer. He measured the loss of radiation from putting the various gases in the tube.

It has been pointed out by Casey¹²,²¹ that this arrangement does not measure absorption, a term repeatedly used by Tyndall. It measures relative opacitywhich is the proportion of radiation passing through the gas. He did not understand that the gas would re-radiate part of the heat as radiation in all directions, some being absorbed by the sides of the tube and some radiating backwards. He seemed to have a rudimentary knowledge of spectroscopy, but his belief in the ether led him to believe in a linear relationship between absorption and concentration. The actual relationship is close to logarithmic.

Tyndall’s biographical memoir²³ has the following passage:

he was able to determine the position of aqueous vapour, which, on account of  condensation, could not be experimented on directly. Experiments made  with dry and humid air corroborated the inference that, as water transcends all other liquids, so aqueous vapour is powerful above all other vapours as a radiator and absorber.” 

Air sent through the system of drying-tubes and through the caustic-potash tube produced an absorption of about  1. 

Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, produced an absorption of about 15. 

Deducting the effect of the gaseous acids, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself.

Tyndall wrote^20,21

 It is exceedingly probable that the absorption of the solar rays by the atmosphere, as established by M. Pouillet, is mainly due to the watery vapour contained in the air. The vast difference between the temperature of the sun at midday and in the evening is also probably due in the main to that comparatively shallow stratum of aqueous vapour which lies close to the earth. At noon the depth of it pierced by the sunbeams is very small; in the evening very great in comparison. 

The intense heat of the sun's direct rays on high mountains is not, I believe, due to his beams having to penetrate only a small depth of air, but to the comparative absence of aqueous vapour at those great elevations. 

But this aqueous vapour, which exercises such a destructive action on the obscure rays, is comparatively transparent to the rays of light. Hence the differential action, as regards the heat coming from the sun to the earth and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere.

He believed that solar rays are absorbed mainly by water vapour in the atmosphere and it is far more important than that radiated from earth into space. So he is also not responsible for the current concept of the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide and he did not consider carbon dioxide as important at all.

He also wrote^20,21 ( page 277 paragraph 1):

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate.

Tyndall does appear to be the first person to point out that trace gases in the atmosphere are capable of influencing climate. He studied carbon dioxide and methane but he thought water vapour was far more important.

SVANTE ARRHENIUS

Svante August Arrhenius (1859--1927)²⁴ was one of the founders of the science of physical chemistry. He received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1903 for his discovery of ions in aqueous salt solutions. He published several articles on the effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere. That published in English in 1896 was the most influential²⁵

He made very few measurements himself and the paper depended entirely on his calculations from the measurements by Langley and Very²⁶. 

SAMUEL PIERPONT LANGLEY

(August 22, 1834, - February 27, 1906)²⁶

was an American astronomer, physicist, and pioneer of aviation.

He is probably best known from the fiasco of his two attempts to launch a man-carrying flying machine across the Potomac river in October and December 1903, both of which failed when the machine plunged directly into the river. He refused to recognise the December 1903 success of the Wright brothers and as Director of the Smithsonian Institution he claimed priority in his museum. The original Wright brothers’ flyer was therefore donated to the Science Museum in London where I used to visit as a boy. The Smithsonian claimed priority for Langley when I visited the museum as recently as the 1960s, but then a deal was done and the Wright machine is now in the Smithsonian and the Science Museum has a replica.

Langley invented an instrument, thebolometer which could measure the intensity of infra red radiation, which could be used to measure narrow absorption bands of a spectrum supplied by a rock salt prism.

Langley made a series of measurements of the full moon’s radiation with this instrument at the Alleghany observatory in 1997²⁷. He made measurements at different angles with the moon.

Arrhenius had the idea that by finding out the difference he got from different angles he could calculate the absorption of the moon’s radiation by the earth’s atmosphere. By assuming that the radiation from the moon was approximately the same as that of the earth he could calculate the absorption of the earth’s atmosphere by the trace absorbent gases water vapour and carbon dioxide.

Erren²⁸ has shown that Langley’s measurements used by Arrhenius were preliminary and had serious errors. They became less accurate as they approached the region used by Arrhenius, and they did not reach far enough to include the major absorption frequency of carbon dioxide. He concluded that Langley’s observations measured water vapour and not carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Arrhenius published many subsequent publications^29-33, parts of which are available from Erren^28,34-38, who also provides modern information on the moon spectrum^34,35, which show that Arrhenius’ values were exaggerated^36,37 and that he did not subsequently amend them.

Erren³⁸ disagrees with Weart²who claimed that the 1901 and 1908 Arrhenius papers lowered his original numbers.

He also gives an account of the paper by K Angstrom³⁹ which wrongly criticized Arrhenius.

On his first page²⁵ Arrhenius  states^:6

Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hothouse because it lets through the light rays from the sun but retains the dark rays from the ground and Langley was by some of his researches led to the view that ‘the temperature of the earth under direct sunshine would probably fall to -200ºC, if that atmosphere did not possess the quality of selective absorption.' 

It should be pointed out that although infra red rays do not pass through the glass of a hot  house, they are also not reflected from it, but are absorbed as heat.

 Arrhenius²⁶ says

This view…must be abandoned, as Langley himself in a later memoir, showed that the full moon, which certainly does not possess any sensible heat-absorbing atmosphere, has a ‘mean effective temperature’ of 45ºC.”

Langley’s figure for the temperature of the moon was wrong. Today’s figure is an average of 107ºC. Langley’s figures must therefore be treated as completely unreliable, and so are the results calculated from them by Arrhenius.

Arrhenius completely failed to accept that Tyndall had found that water vapour was far more important than carbon dioxide.

He assumed that the ratio of carbon dioxide (K) to water vapour (W) in the earth’s atmosphere was K/W where K is 1.5 and W is 0.88, a ratio of 1.7.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is now thought to be  0.039%. The average concentration of water vapour is not known, since it varies from place to place from 0 to 4%. If you take 2% as typical,  the ratio of water vapour to carbon dioxide is about 50 to 1.

So, about 98% of Arrhenius’ figures and calculations, even if soundly based,  still apply to water vapour and not to carbon dioxide.

Arrhenius no longer believed in the ether when he says:

Empty space may be regarded as having a temperature of absolute zero.

He included this basic model of the climate: 

All authors agree in the view that there prevails an equilibrium in the temperature of the earth and of its atmosphere. The atmosphere must, therefore, radiate as much heat to space as it gains, partly from absorption of the sun’s rays, partly through the radiation from the hotter surface of the earth and by means of the ascending currents of air heated by contact with the ground. On the other hand the earth loses just as much heat by radiation into space and to the atmosphere as it gains by absorption of the sun’s rays. If we consider a given place in the atmosphere or on the ground, we must also take into consideration the quantities of heat that are carried to this place by means of oceanic or atmospheric currents.

 It may be noticed that  Arrhenius regards as important “ascending currents of air heated by contact with the ground” and “the quantities of heat that are carried to this place by means of  oceanic or atmospheric currents”. In other words convection and circulation.

He considered the warming effects of increased carbon dioxide as entirely beneficial.

CALLENDAR   

Guy Stewart Callendar⁴⁰ (1898 -1964) was a steam engineer and inventor who published many studies and articles which revived the claim by Arrhenius that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide heated the earth.

He measured the absorption spectrum of water vapour and carbon dioxide and that of the sky. He ignored water vapour and even believed that radiation was the only form of energy transfer. 

In his 1938 paper⁴¹ he stated 

“If the whole surface of the earth is considered as a unit upon which a certain amount of heat falls every day, it is obvious that the mean temperature will depend upon the rate at which heat can escape by radiation, because no other type of heat exchange is possible.”

He seemed to be unaware of the existence of conduction convection and evaporation as possible

Figure 5.3 Choice of CO2  measurements by  Callendar

mechanisms of heat transfer.

Jarowowski⁴³ has claimed that he chose only those figures for carbon dioxide that suited his theory.

                                                                         

           

SIR GEORGE SIMPSON

(1878-1965) the eminent meteorologist, who was, at that time, Director of the UK Meteorological Office, in commenting on this paper⁴¹said

It is not sufficiently realised by non-meteorologists who come for the first time to help the Society in its study that it was impossible to solve the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation. The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat by transfer from one part to another. In the second place, one had to remember that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with the radiation. One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere, and he felt that the actual numerical results which Mr Callendar had obtained could not be used to give a definite indication of the order of magnitude of the effect.

These remarks continue to be true today.

CHAMBERLIN

Thomas Chrowder Chamberlin (1843-1928)⁴³was a respected and influential American geologist and science educator. Chamberlin developed a theory of climate change and was one of the first to emphasize carbon dioxide as a major regulator of Earth's temperature, thus anticipating modern global warming.

Chamberlin's graduate seminar at the University of Chicago in 1896 contained all the themes that informed his research programme over the next three decades. These included the carbon dioxide theory of climate change in its relationship to diastrophism and oceanic circulation, the role of water vapour feedbacks in the climate system, and the relationship between multiple glaciations, the climate system, and the formation of the planet.

HUBERT LAMB

1919-1997 Distinguished British climatologist; Founder of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.⁴⁵

He helped launch climatology as an honest personal assessment of properties of local, global and ancient climates based on exhaustive scholarship.

Lewin⁴⁶ showed that in contrast to current research directions at CRU, its founding director was an early and vocal climate sceptic.

Against the idea that greenhouse gas emissions were (or would soon be) noticeably warming the planet, Lamb raised objections on many levels. His greatest concern was not so much the lack of science behind the theory, it was how the growing preoccupation with man-made warming was distorting the science⁴⁶.

His successor, an Australian physicist, Tom Wigley, assisted by Phil Jones, have been prominent advocates of the carbon dioxide climate theory.

PLASS

(1929- 2004) Gilbert Norman Plass 1920-2004, was a Canadian physicist who in  1956 published a paper with predictions that the increase in global atmospheric CO₂ levels in the 20th century would  affect  the average temperature of the earth.⁴⁷ 

ROGER REVELLE

(1909-1991) Roger Revelle  was an American oceanographer who was Director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego from 1950 to 1964. He served as Science Advisor to Interior Secretary during the Kennedy Administration in the early 1960s.

He helped to launch the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1958 and was founding chairman of the first Committee on Climate Change and the Ocean (CCCO) under the Scientific Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR) and the International Oceanic Commission (IOC). In July 1956, Charles David Keelingjoined the SIO staff, and began measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the Mauna Loa Observatory on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and in Antarctica.

In 1957 Revelle co-authored a paper with Hans Suess⁴⁷  that suggested that human gas emissions might cause global warming and  that  bicarbonate chemistry caused  a resistance to absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide  by the ocean. (the Revelle effect)

Revelle eventually regretted his advocacy of the greenhouse effect⁴⁹

One of his students Al Gore became a propagandist for The Greenhouse Scam with his books and his film An Inconvenient Truth.

R W WOOD

(1868 – 1955) was an American physicist and inventor. He wrote a standard textbook on Physical Optics⁵⁰.

He presented a theory of the operation of a greenhouse in the Philosophical Magazine in 1909 (Vol. 17, pp. 319-320)⁵¹

XXIV. Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse 

By Professor R. W. Wood (Communicated by the Author) 

There appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap.

I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part in the elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part played by the glass was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the enclosure. If we open the doors of a greenhouse on a cold and windy day, the trapping of radiation appears to lose much of its efficacy.

As a matter of fact I am of the opinion that a greenhouse made of a glass transparent to waves of every possible length would show a temperature nearly, if not quite, as high as that observed in a glass house. The transparent screen allows the solar radiation to warm the ground, and the ground in turn warms the air, but only the limited amount within the enclosure. In the "open," the ground is continually brought into contact with cold air by convection currents. 

To test the matter I constructed two enclosures of dead black cardboard, one covered with a glass plate, the other with a plate of rock-salt of equal thickness. The bulb of a thermometer was inserted in each enclosure and the whole packed in cotton, with the exception of the transparent plates which were exposed. When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 o C., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate. 

There was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures. The maximum temperature reached was about 55 oC. From what we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55 oC., it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped. 

Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions. 

I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar. 

Wood showed that internal convection warms the air which cannot escape to be cooled by the outside climate. He does not mention evaporation of water which also cools the surface. In common with Fourier and the others he does not mention what happens at night or when the sun is not present:  when the whole frame cools by external convection combined with deposition of dew internally.

THE REAL GREENHOUSE

A real greenhouse is a confined sector of the real climate described in Chapter 1. It receives sunlight through glass panels but it protects from atmospheric circulation and from precipitation and thus is able to maintain a higher temperature than the outside climate which is cooled by these effects.

Otherwise it behaves in exactly the same way as outside. The sun`s rays are absorbed at the base and the frame and so raise its temperature. It is cooled when the air above is warmed and rises by convection. It is also cooled when water is evaporated and the air becomes more humid. Eventually all the air in the greenhouse has a higher temperature than the outside, where it would be cooled if escaped. The infrared radiation from the ground and from the atmosphere cannot pass through the glass. But they are not reflected as Fourier and others have surmised. They are absorbed and so heat the surface, then cooled by outside convection and outwards radiation.

As greenhouses are not insulated the frame is warmed and is cooled by the outside air circulation and precipitation. At night or when the sun does not shine the frame cools by convection and radiation. The air inside also cools but some heat is transferred to the base by deposition of dew when the humidity falls. Internal radiation plays a small but negligible part. Infra red from the base is merely absorbed by the frame and the glass but it is not reflected as Fourier surmised, but the absorbed heat is mainly lost by external convection of the frame.

SUMMARY

The replacement of the accumulated discoveries of meteorology described in Chapter 1 by global climate models based on atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide was motivated by an environmentalist delusion that human activity was exclusively responsible for the climate.

The presumed pioneers, Fourier and Pouillet, were only concerned with water vapour. Tyndall showed that water vapour was far more important than carbon dioxide. Yet the wrong greenhouse gas has been chosen, purely because its concentration can be blamed on human activity.

Arrhenius ignored the advice of these pioneers and failed to realise that Langley’s measurements which he used did not include carbon dioxide absorption; so his results were for water vapour instead. All subsequent advocates for an important role for carbon dioxide have failed to realise this.

REFERENCES

 

1. Weart S 1997, The Discovery of the Risk of Global Warming.  Physics Today January 34-43.
2. Weart S 2014, The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#S1. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
3. Joseph Fourier 2014, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier
4. Fourier J.1822 Théorie Analytique de Chaleur. Chez Firmin Didot, père et fils. http://www.archive.org/details/thorieanalytiqu00fourgoog
5. Freeman A 1952, Theory of Heat. Translation of “Fourier J B 1822, “Théorie Analytique de Chaleur” in  Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 45. Encyclopedia Britannica.
6. Fourier J B J 1824, "Remarques Générales Sur Les Températures Du Globe Terrestre  Et Des Espaces Planétaires.", Annales de Chimie et de Physique, Vol. 27, pp. 136–167. http://books.google.com/books?id=1Jg5AAAAcAAJ&dq=Annales+de+chimie+et+de+physique+volume+27&
7. Fourier J B J 1827, "Memoire sur les temperatures du globe terrestre et des espaces planetaires", Memoires de l'Académie Royale des Sciences, Vol. 7, pp. 569-604,  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k32227.image.f808.tableDesMatieres.langEN.8. 6.
8. Casey T 2014, Text of E. Burgess' 1837 Translation of Fourier (1824)’ http://burgess1837.geologist-1011.mobi/
9. Burgess E 1837, "General Remarks on the Temperature of the Terrestrial Globe and the Planetary Spaces; by Baron Fourier", American Journal of Science, Vol 32, pp. 1-20. Translation from the French, of Fourier J B J 1824, "Remarques Générales Sur Les Températures Du Globe Terrestre Et Des Espaces Planétaires", Annales de Chimie et de Physique, Vol. 27, pp. 136–167. http://nsdl.org/archives/onramp/classic_articles/issue1_global_warming/n1-Fourier_1824corrected.pdf
10. Casey T 2014, Fourier (1824) Repaginated with Corrections from Burgess (1837). http://fourier1824.geologist-1011.mobi/
11. Casey T 2014, English Translation of Fourier (1827).                       http://fourier1827.geologist-1011.mobi/
12. Casey T 2014, The Most Misquoted and Most Misunderstood Science Papers in the Public Domain. http://geologist-1011.mobi/
13. Horace De Saussure and his hot boxes 2014,  http://www.solarcooking.org/saussure.htm.
14. Horace  de Saussure 2014,                                                                 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace-B%C3%A9n%C3%A9dict_de_Saussure
15. Claude Pouillet 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Pouillet
16. Pouillet C 1838, Mémoire sur la chaleur solaire, sur les pouvoirs rayonnants et absorbants de l'air atmosphérique et sur la température de l'espace.  Comptes Rendus des Scéances de l’Academie des Sciences July 9^th.
17. Pouillet C 1838, translated by F W Taylor. http://nsdl.org/archives/onramp/classic_articles/issue1_global_warming/n2-Poulliet_1837corrected.pdf
18. Tyndall J 2014, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall
19. Tyndall J 1861, "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, Conduction.-The Bakerian Lecture", The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Series 4, Vol. 22, pp. 169-194, 273-285. http://nsdl.org/archives/onramp/classic_articles/issue1_global_warming/n3.Tyndall_1861corrected.pdf.
20. Casey T 2014, http://tyndall1861.geologist-1011.mobi/;
21. Tyndall J 1868, “ Heat as a Mode of Motion” http://www.archive.org/details/heatamodemotion03tyndgoog
22. Melloni  M 1850, La Thermochrose, Part 1: Ou La Coloration Calorifique. http://tinyurl.com/pzyjefa
23. Tyndall J 1903, Biographical Memoir in Lectures and Essays. Watts and Co
24. Svante Arrhenius 2014,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
25. Arrhenius S 1896, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science (fifth series), April 1896. vol 41, pages 237–275. 
26. Langley S P (and Frank W. Very)1890 , The Temperature of the Moon, Memoir of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. iv. 9th mem. 193pp .
27. Langley S P 2014, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Pierpont_Langley
28. Erren  H 2011, Langley Revisited. http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/langleyrevdraft2.htm
29. Arrhenius S 1901a, Ueber die Wärmeabsorption durch Kohlensäure, Annalen der Physik, Vol 4, 1901, pages 690–705.
30. Arrhenius S 1901b, Über Die Wärmeabsorption Durch Kohlensäure Und Ihren Einfluss Auf Die Temperatur Der Erdoberfläche. Abstract of the proceedings of the Royal Academy of Science, 58, 25–58.
31. Arrhenius  1903, Lehrbuch der Kosmischen Physik, Vol I and II, S. Hirschel publishing house, Leipzig, 1026 pages.
32. Arrhenius S 1906, Die vermutliche Ursache der Klimaschwankungen, Meddelanden från K. Vetenskapsakademiens Nobelinstitut, Vol 1 No 2, pages 1–10.
33. Arrhenius S 1908, Das Werden der Welten, Academic Publishing House, Leipzig, 208 pages.
34. Erren H 2014, Scanned pages from Arrhenius 1901 http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhenius1901/index.html
35. Erren H 2014, Scanned pages from  Arrrhenius  Textbook of Cosmic Physics 1903 and Arrhenius 1908 “Becoming the Worlds” http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhenius0308/index.html
36. Erren H 2014, Arrhenius was wrong. http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhrev.htm
37. Erren H 2014 Summary graphs of Arrhenius’ errors http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhenius.html
38. Erren H 2014, Reply to Weart2                http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhweart.htm
39. Erren H 2014, Knut Angstrom’s measurements. http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/angstrom1900/index.html
40. Callendar G S http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Stewart_Callendar
41. Callendar G S 1938, The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its Influence on Climate, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorology Society, 64, pps. 223-240.  http://www.rmets.org/pdf/qjcallender38.pdf
42. Jaworowski Z 1997,  Ice Core Data show no Carbon Dioxide Increase   21st Century Spring 1997 44-52.  http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf
43. Fleming J R 1998  Historical Perspectives on Climate Change Oxrord University Press
44. Lamb H H http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/about-cru/hubert-lamb 
45. Lewin B  Enthusiasm and Sceptical Science   https://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/h-h-lamb/ https://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/the-scepticism-of-hubert-horace-lamb-part-ii/
46. Global Warming Policy Foundation Hubert Lamb And The Transformation Of Climate Science http://us4.campaignarchive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=f3a198d64b&e=199b7f065f
47. Gilbert N Plass 1956. The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change. Tellus 8, 140–154.
48. Revelle, R  & Seuss, H .E 1987. Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an increase of Atmospheric CO₂ diring the Past Decades http://www.odlt.org/dcd/docs/Revelle-Suess1957.pdf
49. Uncensored    http://uncensored.co.nz/tag/global-warming-scam/
50. Wood R W 1934, Physical Optics. Dover publications New York 1967
51. Wood R W 1909, Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse. Philosophical magazine vol 17, p319-320. http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html