Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr Rogers
I don’t see how his argument about gases cooling has anything to do with the “greenhouse gas” theory.

He contends that, since these and other gases cool rapidly after the earth rotates its surface from the rays of the sun,
as do trees, rocks, water, buildings, etc., they do not retain heat to radiate further the following day; and, no
more than the aforementioned structures of the planet, regardless of the amount of gas percentage present.

Furthermore, the "greenhouse gas theory" postulates that gases like CO2 retain the sun's heat disproportionately
radiate over a long enough time span as to build "heat sinks" that build up more and more heat to radiate over a
period of days.

this article doesn’t seem to address the actual idea of how it WOULD work..

His point is that there is no way to prove, by scientific measure, that this theory would, could, or should work.

39 posted on 10/13/2023 11:26:24 AM PDT by Thommas (The snout of the camel is already under the tent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: Thommas; Pres Raygun

As Pres Raygun put it: “My understanding of CO2 warming theories are that CO2 absorbs longer wavelength IR radiating from the earth and re-radiates half of that power back to the earth.”

Greenhouse gas theory doesn’t say it holds the heat and then acts as a heat source, but that it reflects some of the heat down instead of up. Or from wiki: “the greenhouse effect retains heat [to the Earth] by restricting radiative transfer through the air and reducing the rate at which heat escapes to space.”


52 posted on 10/13/2023 2:20:44 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (We're a nation of feelings, not thoughts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson