Why the physics used by climatologists is wrong and greenhouse gases actually COOL the planet

Arrhenius and climatologists ever since have ...

(a)  Ignored the fact explained by Josef Loschmidt in the 1870's that it is gravity that establishes what is a stable equilibrium non-zero temperature gradient in Earth's troposphere. Such a gradient is now known to exist in all other planetary tropospheres in our Solar System.  Furthermore, it can be shown to be a direct result of the Second Law process of maximum entropy production, as proven in my 2013 paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" and my book.

(b) As is easily deduced from energy diagrams published by NASA and climatologists, the method by which they quantify surface temperatures (and increases in such) assumes that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law gives correct resulting temperatures for the arithmetic sum of the radiative fluxes from two or more surfaces.  It doesn't.  It is derived from the integral of the Planck function for a single source.  No published experiment anywhere confirms that climatologists are correct in using that law the way they do in all their computer modelling, which is thus wrong.

Gravity forms the temperature gradient, repairing it in calm conditions at night.  The next morning when solar energy is absorbed mostly in the tops of clouds and in the middle and upper troposphere the new energy is spread out by gravity in such a way that the whole graph of temperature v. altitude rises to a higher but parallel position.  This means that some of the new energy in the middle and upper atmosphere makes its way by molecular collisions (not back radiation) towards and into the surface.  This heat from cooler to warmer regions can only happen in a force field.  In fact it also happens radially in every functioning vortex cooling tube due to centrifugal force.

Hence, with all the overwhelming evidence and with the use of correct physics, I rest my case.  QED.