Excellent. You can feel the difference in the atmosphere on a cloudless day. As soon as the sun goes down, the temperature starts dropping. It's obvious, but people would rather ignore what they can clearly see for themselves.

Unfortunately, this person is purveying crank science. He misidentifies what is going on with the greenhouse effect and simply gets it all wrong. Who am I to say? I have three degrees in aeronautics and astronautics, concentrating in fluid physics. Part of my work was analyzing the propagation of high-power infrared beams through the atmosphere. Everything works according to theory.

In a nutshell, the Earth is heated by the Sun. The atmosphere is heated by the Earth (not the other way around), and produces the adiabatic temperature profile with increasing altitude. Only up to the point where a heated gas parcel cools to the ambient conditions, where convection stops. Above that, the air temperature is constant. When the Sun goes down, the solar radiation stops and the Earth's infrared emission continues...and the Earth surface gets cold.

If there were no greenhouse gases (predominantly water vapor and minimally carbon dioxide), the thermal emission of the Earth (long-wave infrared radiation) would go straight to space and the equilibrium temperature of the Earth would be 255 kelvins (about 0 degrees F). The reality is that the mean temperature of the Earth is about 288 K (about 54.5 F). If one accounts for the fact that about 84% of the Earth's emission is randomly scattered by the greenhouse gases, the result is that half of that returns to the surface of the Earth, to add to the solar input, thus causing a higher temperature in order to balance input with output. In accordance with radiative transfer theory (conservation of energy, which is a real thing, despite his wild claim otherwise).

The greenhouse effect is not some theoretical bugaboo; it is observed and measured. It exists. The question is whether we are warming---not whether we are as warm as we are. Dr. William Happer performed MODTRAN calculations for varying CO2 concentrations and found that at 0 ppm, there was an absorption notch in the spectrum of water (no scattering in that notch). At 50 ppm, the notch was half-filled. At 100 ppm, the notch was almost entirely filled. At higher concentrations, there would be no essential difference in the absorption. Geologically, CO2 has never been even so low as 100 ppm. At that level, CO2 scatters essentially 100% of the spectrum in that notch. This means that increasing CO2 concentration can have no further effect. (It is similar to the fact that when you have truly white paint, you can't make it any whiter.)

Net takeaway: the greenhouse effect is real, it is benign, and it cannot significantly increase. If there is any warming, it is due to changes in the Sun's radiation output, the reflectance of the Earth, or an artifact of the fact that we can hardly know what is happening to better than a degree (if that).

The sun is the biggest temperature driver of all, and somehow the global warming "scientists" left that out of all their computer climate models.

There are numerous problems with this article. I am going to give a counter argument to some of the statements here to show these problems. That doesn't mean I think that the "Climate Change" narrative is accurate, I don't, but this article makes several false statements to support their claims, and those should be addressed.

Professors have used these to leap to the conclusion that energy cannot be destroyed, or at least it migrates on and on. This is also false. ,,, Energy does not migrate on and on. Kinetic energy (motion) is continuously destroyed in a gravitational field. Put bluntly, a six-year-old can see that a baseball rolls to a stop.

The idea of conservation of energy is more of a guideline than a rule. Indeed, the currently "thought to be true" accelerating expansion of the universe has some serious conservation of energy problems. However, in every case I've seen so far (not counting that one) that someone has thought "Look, here is proof that energy is not conserved" the problem ends up being the proclaimant not appreciating what the system really is.

For example, in the above example of the baseball:

When a baseball rolls on the ground and comes to a stop, some of the energy goes into heat due to friction between the ground and the ball, and the rest goes into changing the rotational speed of the earth. Mostly it's the latter, so I will focus on that.

This "slowing the earth down" can be seen quite easily if you repeat the experiment by using a basketball in place of the earth. You could set up an apparatus that has a fixed, but able to spin baseball (say an axle going through the ball), and a fixed, but able to spin basketball (ditto). Spin the baseball, then put it in contact with the basketball and see what happens.

What will happen is as soon as the baseball comes into contact with the non-spinning basketball, the basketball will start spinning the opposite direction. There will also be some slippage, which means friction, which means heat, so there will be a change in temperature, and thus a loss of energy (but not really "lost energy", because it has become heat energy). However, most of the initial spinning energy will go into spinning the basketball in the opposite direction (angular momentum is conserved). Angular momentum is a function of both the size and the mass of the respective balls, thus the basketball will spin backwards much more slowly compared to how fast the baseball was initially spinning.

The formula looks like this (L is angular momentum):

L = 2pi * M * f * r^2

As you can see, if the total L remains the same before and after the contact of the basketball and the baseball, the angular momentum that is transferred to the basketball will make it spin much slower than the baseball. I.e. because (L) remains the same, the angular frequency ("f", i.e. the spin rate) will be smaller, because the M (mass) and the r (radius) are so much bigger.

Of course eventually the whole system will come to a stop, but if you put a box around the whole thing and measure the temperature, you will see that the total temperature of the system has gone up, commesurate with the total initial energy. That heat comes from the friction between the balls and the air and (mostly) between the balls and the axles they are spinning around.

Now scale that basketball up to the size and the mass of the earth, and you will see that the baseball isn't going to noticeably change the earths angular momentum. That doesn't mean it's not happening at all.

This is just one single example. ALL such arguments do not appreciate the total system.

Temperature is the measure of kinetic energy. The definition of temperature is “an indication of the speed that atoms and molecules are moving” (Dorling Kindersley Science Encyclopedia, page 140). A heat source causes them to accelerate and collide with one another, and when they cool, they slow down. They do not go elsewhere.

Professors skip over this simple truth, the definition of temperature.

I agree with this definition of temperature. I disagree that "Professors skip over this simple truth." I suppose it depends on what level of training you are receiving, and who your professor is, but this is absolutely a part of the training of an undergraduate physics, or chemistry degree. It is further expounded in graduate school.

All agree that from 1950 to 1985, our atmosphere cooled very slightly. It did the same from 1997 to 2015. During both periods, carbon dioxide levels rose dramatically.

These measurements the author is talking about are of the upper atmosphere, which has cooled. Everyone does agree on that. The lower atmosphere, near the earth, must then go up. The total atmospheric temperature has remained relatively consistent. The total energy in from the sun = the total energy given off by the earth. It must remain equal in and out. If some energy gets trapped lower down, then by necessity some energy is lost from up above. This is in fact an argument for "anthropogenic climate change," not against. This argument has other problems that are not addressed by the author, but this part of their argument is flawed.

Once again, this argument is one of not appreciating the entire system in question.

I stopped reading at this point. The author makes some good points, but there are some serious issues with their argument that need to be addressed to be taken seriously by anyone who matters.