[steelyourfaith]

An interesting refutation of the very hypothesis of greenhouse gases contributing to the warming of the globe.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[pepsionice]

Again, we go back to the Earth Sciences graduates who couldn’t get a real science degree...so they got the basic general degree, with no real background in anything special.

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

[Atom Smasher]

Are you trying to tell us that we should not believe the annointed man of life himself, Gore?

Well, I never! gasp! choke! gasp...

How could you!

[mefistofelerevised]

Not enough time has gone by to have a decisive answer on the issue either way, in my opinion. But to think human activity can't have an effect on the environment seems naive.

[dr_lew]

Yes, the sun warms the ground, and the ground warms the air, but why doesn’t the earth just get hotter and hotter? It’s because the earth radiates into space. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb this radiation in the infrared range of the spectrum, and slow the rate at which the ground can radiate into space. From there it gets complicated!

[wagglebee]

Earth's annual mean surface temperature of 15°C is 33°C higher as a result of the greenhouse effect ..."

Are they trying to say that the mean surface temperature SHOULD be -18°C? Because if this is the case that means that the earth's "normal" state would be an ice age.

[Ditto]

Forcast record cold for this date in Pittsburgh PA tonight --- 30 degrees. Previous record low, 35 degrees.

Cover your plants!

[calex59]

You should know better than to post an entirely scientific and logical article on global warming!/SAR

Actually this is a great article and I enjoyed it immensely.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks steelyourfaith.

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[dr_lew]

Cf. ( the lately deceased ) Marcel Leroux's Global Warming, Myth or Reality, pg. 91, where a similar argument is made. I had this out of the library a while back, and found it very thought provoking, but by no means a definitive refutation. I was most struck by his observation that the touted models are extremely simplified and leave out most of the actual features of energy transfer in the atmosphere. I've seen reference to the global warming "signal", which it is presumed must prevail, however much it might be masked by other effects. I think Leroux's criticisms of this type of thinking are cogent.

OTOH, I find it disturbing when he repeats various sophisms, such as "the emitter is warmer than the absorber" on pg. 91, as part of an argument denying the central premise of the greenhouse effect. This must be true if there is to be a net transfer of heat from the emitter to the absorber, but in fact any two radiative bodies will exchange radiation, and both are emitting and absorbing radiation. The greenhouse effect says that the atmosphere mitigates, or reduces, the radiative loss from the surface into space, and the cited categorical dismissal is not to the point.

[AndyJackson]

An interesting refutation of the very hypothesis of greenhouse gases contributing to the warming of the globe.

It is a refutation of nothing, and the author barely knows what he is talking any more than you understand what he is taking about. He is using much longer words than he understands.

The physics problem is really quite simply stated. What is the long term trend in accumulation of gases which decrease the reradiation of infrared from the earth into outher space? How do those gases affect the earth's heat balance, on a sufficiently fine grained scale to address the problem? How does that heat balance affect global climate, answered on a sufficiently fine grained to understand local and regional impacts of that climate change?

Despite the idiots on both sides (the right wing idiots are as dumb as the left wing idiots) it is an open scientific question. By open I mean it is not closed, not answered. It is not answered positively or negatively. That is what an open scientific question means.

For those who pay some attention to what the more sophisticated researchers on the subject are doing, increasingly sophisticated computer models based on fundamental physics show some alarming long term trends, but even they are not conclusive because even with the largest computers in the world, the one's used to design nuclear weapons, the models are insufficiently detailed to lead one to conclude that the answer is correct.