\subsection{This paper}
%
In the language of physics 
\textit{an effect} is a not necessarily evident 
but a reproducible \textit{and} measurable phenomenon
\textit{together with} its theoretical explanation. 

\textit{Neither} the warming mechanism in a glass house
\textit{nor} the supposed anthropogenic warming
is due to an effect in the sense of this definition:
%
\begin{itemize}
\item In the first case (the glass house) one encounters 
      a straightforward phenomenon.
\item In the second case (the Earth's atmosphere) 
      one cannot measure something;
      rather, one only makes heuristic calculations.
\end{itemize}
%
  
The explanation of the warming mechanism
in a real greenhouse is a standard problem
in undergraduate courses, 
in which optics, nuclear physics 
and classical radiation theory are dealt with. 
On this level neither the mathematical 
formulation of the first and second law of thermodynamics 
nor the partial differential equations of hydrodynamics 
or irreversible thermodynamics are known; 
the phenomenon has thus to be analyzed
with comparatively elementary means.

However, looking up the search terms 
\lq\lq glass house effect\rq\rq, 
\lq\lq greenhouse effect\rq\rq, 
or the German word
\lq\lq Treibhauseffekt\rq\rq\ 
in classical textbooks 
on experimental physics or theoretical physics, 
one finds 
- possibly to one's surprise and disappointment - 
that this effect does not appear anywhere 
- with a few exceptions, where in updated editions
of some books publications in climatology are cited.
One prominent example is the textbook by Kittel
who added a \lq\lq supplement\rq\rq\ to the 1990 edition
of his Thermal Physics on page 115\TschSpace%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\cite{Kittel2000} :
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% 
\begin{quote} 
"The Greenhouse Effect describes the warming
of the surface of the Earth caused by the infrared
absorbent layer of water, as vapor and in clouds,
and of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere between
the Sun and the Earth. The water may contribute 
as much as 90 percent of the warming effect."   
\end{quote}
%
Kittel \lq\lq supplement\rq\rq\ 
refers to the 1990 and 1992 books 
of J.T.\ Houghton \textit{et al.} on Climate Change,
which are nothing but the standard IPCC assessments\TschSpace%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\cite{IPCC1990,IPCC1992}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
In general, most climatologic texts do not refer
to any fundamental work of thermodynamics and 
radiation theory.
Sometimes the classical astrophysical work of 
Chandrasekhar\TschSpace%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\cite{Chandrasekhar1960}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
is cited,
but it is not clear at all, which results are applied
where, and how the conclusions of Chandrasekhar fit 
into the framework of infrared radiation transfer 
in planetary atmospheres.

There seems to exist no source where an atmospheric greenhouse 
effect is introduced from fundamental university physics alone.
 
Evidently, the atmospheric greenhouse problem is not a fundamental 
problem of the philosophy of science, which is best described by 
the M\"unchhausen trilemma%
%
\footnote{%
The term was coined by the critical rationalist Hans Albert,
see e.g.\ 
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\ifthenelse{\equal{IJMPB}{\TschStyle}}
           {Ref.~\refcite{HansAlbert1985}.}
           {}%
\ifthenelse{\equal{arXiv}{\TschStyle}}
           {Ref.~\cite{HansAlbert1985}.}
           {}
\ifthenelse{\equal{TeX4ht}{\TschStyle}}
           {Ref.~\cite{HansAlbert1985}.}
           {}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
For the current discussion on global warming
Albert's work may be particularly interesting. 
According to Albert new insights are not easy 
to be spread, because there is often an ideological 
obstacle, for which Albert coined the 
notion of \textit{immunity against criticism}.}%
%
, stating that one is left 
with the ternary alternative%
%
\footnote{%
Originally, an \textit{alternative} is a choice
between two options, not one of the options itself.
A ternary alternative generalizes an ordinary alternative
to a threefold choice.}  
% 
\begin{quote}
\textit{infinite regression} - 
\textit{dogma} - 
\textit{circular reasoning}
\end{quote}
%
Rather, the atmospheric Greenhouse mechanism is a
conjecture, which may be proved or disproved
already in concrete engineering thermodynamics\TschSpace%
\cite{AlfredSchackBook,Kreith1999,Baukal2000}.
Exactly this was done well many years ago by an expert
in this field, namely Alfred Schack, who wrote
a classical textbook on this subject\TschSpace%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\cite{AlfredSchackBook}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
1972 he showed that the radiative component of heat transfer
of ${\rm CO}_2$, though relevant at the temperatures in 
combustion chambers, can be neglected at atmospheric
temperatures. The influence of carbonic acid on
the Earth's climates is definitively unmeasurable\TschSpace%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\cite{AlfredSchack1972}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

The remaining part of this paper is organized as follows:
%
\begin{itemize}
\item In Section 2 the warming effect in real greenhouses,
      which has to be distinguished strictly from the (in-)\,famous 
      conjecture of Arrhenius, is discussed.
\item Section 3 is devoted to the atmospheric greenhouse problem. 
      It is shown that this effect neither has experimental nor 
      theoretical foundations and must be considered as 
      \textit{fictitious.} 
      The claim that
      ${\rm CO}_2$ emissions give rise to anthropogenic climate changes
      has no physical basis. 
\item In Section 4 theoretical physics and climatology 
      are discussed in context of the philosophy of science.
      The question is raised, 
      how far global climatology 
      fits into the framework of exact 
      sciences such as physics.
\item The final Section 5 is a physicist's summary.
\end{itemize}
%
