"There are two things called "The Greenhouse Effect" (false)"
It is NOT false, and I showed you a historical reference that proved it.
Let me direct you to my earlier words:
Regardless, we are all telling you now that there is only one effect correctly referred to as "the greenhouse effect" in science, and that it not the same mechanism that keeps greenhouses warm. Any source that claims otherwise is incorrect, no matter how official-sounding the domain name.
I did not elaborate further because, as I stated, I did not want to get into a semantic argument, because it does not materially affect my argument.
Once again, I do not claim that nobody ever believed that the mechanisms were the same. I even link to a NASA for-kids education module that states exactly that. What I say is that those people are incorrect. It is entirely possible for someone to believe something that isn't true, as I am sure you will agree.
With regards to that exact quote you mentioned, it comes from Arrhenius's Worlds in the Making, and while I do not have the full text of the book with me perhaps some larger quotes would give you some perspective on his work:
"To a certain extent the temperature of the earth's surface, as we shall presently see, is conditioned by the properties of the atmosphere surrounding it, and particularly by the permeability of the latter for the rays of heat."
"That the atmospheric envelopes limit the heat losses from the planets had been suggested about 1800 by the great French physicist Fourier. His ideas were further developed afterwards by Pouillet and Tyndall. Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses."
As you can see, as far back as your 1906 quote, "The Hothouse Effect" refers to heat rays, not convection. I do not have Fourier earlier work either, so I cannot comment on whether his theories were about trapped radiation or convection.
THE EVIDENCE, as I have already told you more than once, is provided in the other article
I will try to keep this short, since reading is clearly not your strong suite. Here was my original statement:
Frankly, that "Climate Sophistry" page is absurd.
I did not mention the second document because I had not at that time read it, because the first article was, as I say, absurd. No amount of other links will be able to redeem it because its problem is not maths or science (climate or otherwise). The problem is it is logically inconsistent in itself. To be blunt, IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE, as I explain in my earlier comment. As I stated:
Regardless of the size of the greenhouse, the increased temperature (increased, that is, over the external temperature) will be due to trapped convection.
You then responded with:
I am guessing that you are trying to say that the temperature inside and outside would go up by the same amount
which was a good guess, especially since the very next sentence I wrote in that comment was "The same CO2 density inside and outside the greenhouses means that the CO2 would increase the greenhouse temperature and the external temperature by the same amount."
Once again, Postma's pivotal claim is that The observed heat increase in a greenhouse can be entirely explained by trapped convection. As I pointed out in the same comment as before, he provides two sources for that claim: his experiment that doesn't involve a greenhouse at all, and another that does not provide his conclusion.
Once again, and for the last time, I hope this sets the matter to rest. Regarding the rest of your most recent reply with arguments about Latour's thermodynamics claims, I will again quote what I said earlier:
Frankly, it sounds like you are trying to move the goalposts
I suggest [...] you discuss [Latour's thermodynamics claims] on the appropriate forums rather than attempting to shoehorn them in to this discussion.
I am willing to admit that I did find a relationship between Postma's article and Latour's: they are both as absurd as the other. I am willing to bet that this skydragon book you are pimping is just as absurd as both.