The moon doesn't have an atmosphere
Suzuki lead the charge on that one too.
Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
The moon doesn't have an atmosphere
Suzuki lead the charge on that one too.
If the there is no such thing as a the greenhouse effect-- a position many on here support--then it shouldn't make a difference if there is an atmospehere or not. It is the blanketing effect of the atmosphere that is the basis of the entire theoretical edifice.
Not really. Most of the deniers here don't believe in the greenhouse effect. That, in itself, is quite unusual. Even most skeptic sites will not run blogs that refute the greenhouse effect, since it is so well demonstrated and has such a solid theoretical foundation. But this is one of the wackier chat forums out there.
Even if you remove the anthropogenic factor, even if you assume the CO2 is natural in origin, you would still expect teh temperature to rise, based on the radiation physics. Since most of the skpetics at this site think that the climate is cooling, that's another theoretical discrepancy. If CO2 is increasing and the temperature is dropping, you'd need to explain that.
And finally, if the CO2 is not anthropgenic, you have to explain where the estimated 2000 Gt of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere since 1750 have gone, if not, at least in part, to the atmosphere. 2000 Gt of CO2. Based on the weight adn molecular make-up of the atmosphere, every 8 Gt of CO2 should increase the average atmosphereic CO2 concentration by about 1 ppm.
Who supports the theory that our atmosphere doesn't act like a greenhouse? You're daft.
Light is neither electric or magnetic or holds a charge. It's a wave.
We still haven't hit the same CO2 levels and temps of the last interglacial event. Part of the big lie is avoiding comparing interglacial and giving atmospheric data from during glaciation when CO2 was sequestered in ice.
Our atmosphere doesn't act like a greenhouse. However, there is a strong theoretical and observational foundation that it is subject to the Greenhouse Effect. Unfortunately, whoever named the Greenhouse Effect didn't understand how greenhouses worked. (Greenhouses work primarily due to trapping convection cells; the Greenhouse Effect is radiative heat transfer--a different animal altogether.)
I know there are a few here who have dismissed the GHG theory.
Not really. According to quantum mechanics, light exhibits properties of both a wave and a particle. Einstein did his work on the photoeletric effect over a hundred years ago. Get with the program, man! :lol:
Try this site. MIT offers free on-line courses. I recommend a physics primer on electricty and magnetism:
Physics II: Electricity and Magnetism | Physics | MIT OpenCourseWare
Yes, as it relates to causation via anthropogenic sources as being the sole or main culprit.
Key word here is: a n t h r o p o g e n i c
No--are you paying attention. Petros just posted his refutation of the Greenhouse Effect.
Not really, you're just not paying attention. See the post above. Again, if you are goping to argue that climate change isn't anthropogenic, you have to explain the rather remarkable coincidence of (a) CO2 accelerating at unprecedented levels and (b) increase in CO2 in the atmosphere being on the same order of magnitude of mass of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere.
There are a number of reasons. None of which rule out anthropogenic CO2 increases.How do you explain all the CO2 increases preanthro?
How do you explain all the CO2 increases preanthro?
OK, so you are implying the current rise is natural. Then what happened to the 2000 Gt we've put into the atmosphere? Just disappeared? Where did it go, if not the atmosphere?