Skip to comments.
Greenhouse Gases Disproved
The London Telegraph ^
| 12/3/07
| ReasonMcLucus
Posted on 12/03/2007 11:09:35 AM PST by kathsua
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
So why do some people still claim there is a greenhouse effect? Maybe they just don't know how to read or are too lazy to do anything except accept whatever they are told by their masters like AlGore.
1
posted on
12/03/2007 11:09:36 AM PST
by
kathsua
To: kathsua
2
posted on
12/03/2007 11:15:19 AM PST
by
rightinthemiddle
(Without the Media, the Left and Islamofacists are Nothing.)
To: kathsua
This is ridiculous. The greenhouse effect is a natural atmospheric phenomena recognized for over a century, and it’s as real as gravity. Al Gore didn’t invent it. It’s a vital thing - without it, earth would have an average global temperature of 0 degrees F. It is the reason Venus is a hellish, sweltering place. You can test it with an infrared thermocam and a tube full of CO2 - the CO2 will block out and absorb heat. The politics of global warming are another matter, but don’t try and deny a basic fact of science.
3
posted on
12/03/2007 11:20:04 AM PST
by
PC99
To: kathsua
If you want to bring global warming crashing to the ground, disprove the link between greenhouse gases and warming.
I never could see how gas could store that much energy anyway.
4
posted on
12/03/2007 11:21:02 AM PST
by
Free Vulcan
(No prisoners. No mercy.)
To: PC99
What are you doing waving your “science” around? Don’t you know physical processes vary according to the political climate?
5
posted on
12/03/2007 11:23:49 AM PST
by
ahayes
("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
To: PC99
"......but dont try and deny a basic fact of science."
That is similar to my reaction, but I disagree that it is a hard fact. It is such a widely accepted phenomenon that I would tend to doubt this guy in 1908 properly simulated earths atmosphere and solar radiation.
HOWEVER, it is NOT hard fact. For it to be hard fact, we would have to be able to directly measure the phenomenon. I would like you to provide information about how this is done. I am not talking about computer models that based their calculations on excepted properties of atmospheric gases. Even satellites that read surface and atmospheric temperatures DO NOT measure the green house effect itself. The greenhouse effect is simply calculated based on accepted scientific properties.
6
posted on
12/03/2007 11:25:20 AM PST
by
z3n
To: Free Vulcan
>>I never could see how gas could store that much energy anyway.<<
It doesn’t STORE the energy!
To: alexander_busek
8
posted on
12/03/2007 11:31:22 AM PST
by
Free Vulcan
(No prisoners. No mercy.)
To: alexander_busek
It doesnt STORE the energy! Yes, it does.
9
posted on
12/03/2007 11:32:14 AM PST
by
r9etb
To: PC99
Thank you for the voice of reason. I honestly couldn’t believe what I was reading in this article.
To: PC99
“a tube full of CO2...”
Maybe. But try comparing a tube with a concentration of, say, 250 ppm of C02 with another containing 350 ppm.
That, to me, is the real issue.
11
posted on
12/03/2007 11:36:45 AM PST
by
Elpasser
To: PC99
the CO2 will block out and absorb heat How does it block out and absorb heat at the same time?
12
posted on
12/03/2007 11:37:30 AM PST
by
SwankyC
To: kathsua
So why do some people still claim there is a greenhouse effect?
Because there is a greenhouse effect.
While the causes of global warming are up for debate, the existence of a greenhouse effect would be pretty hard to disprove, considering the overwhelming evidence in favor of it.
13
posted on
12/03/2007 11:38:38 AM PST
by
mysterio
To: SwankyC
Seems like it was a poor choice of words. Trap would be more apt.
To: SwankyC
[How does it block out and absorb heat at the same time?]
When eneergy impinges on a surface it is either passed, blocked (absorbed) or reflected. Or a combination but all must be accounted for. It is that nasty conservation of energy thingy.
15
posted on
12/03/2007 11:45:52 AM PST
by
dbacks
(Taglines for sale or rent.)
To: Elpasser; kathsua
To: PC99
It is the reason Venus is a hellish, sweltering place. I'm sure its proximity to the giant heat radiating fireball in the sky has nothing to do with it.
17
posted on
12/03/2007 11:49:46 AM PST
by
Perchant
To: PC99
Remember the DUmmie who did an experiment with a some lighter fluid and steel mesh that “disproved” the “official story” of the 9/11 attacks?
18
posted on
12/03/2007 11:52:12 AM PST
by
steve-b
(Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. --RAH)
To: alexander_busek
Gases are composed of atoms that contain kinetic energy. This energy is not lost, but merely redistributed among other atoms during collisions (law of conservation of energy)... Also, energy exists between electron shell states of the atom (potential energy)...
19
posted on
12/03/2007 11:53:26 AM PST
by
erikm88
To: mysterio
If you want to live above the CO2 on Venus you’ll have to go up to about 50,000 meters in the sulphur clouds where the pressure is only one bar and the temperature about 70F.
Bring your own ladder and oxygen supply as they have no rentals.
20
posted on
12/03/2007 11:56:28 AM PST
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson