The greenhouse effect is not a myth. Greenhouse gases obviously change the climate as has been proven during several major climatic shifts in the Earth's history. All that you have to do is to compare Venus and Mars to realize that the greenhouse effect is real. Claiming the contrary is really stupid.
Nothing in the article says that the greenhouse effect does not exist. It says that it is not the major factor in climate change. I believe that the sun is the single most important factor in climate change. If the earth's rotational axis happens to shift a few degrees then that would cause a very big climatic change.
Yep, better cut down on all those MANMADE greenhouse gasses on Mars and Venus. This is not a debate about weather it is about economic and political control of human behavior.
What will happen when you compare Venus to Mars? You'll find that Venus is warmer than Mars. It also receives 64 times the solar radiation.
In truth, there is some truth to global warming: about 1 degree over the past century, less than half of which is a result of CO2 "pollution". The result? Slightly warmer evenings and winters, particular in otherwise harsh, subartctic climates, resulting in massively improved harvests.
On the other hand, many people are scared of the ice caps melting. For Antarctica to melt, temperatures would have to increase ONE HUNDRED DEGREES for TEN THOUSAND YEARS!!!
Balderdash. - Venus is less than half of the distance to the sun as mars; I don't suppose that could cause higher temps, huh?
Increased atmospheric density helps to keep the planet cool. Claiming the contrary is not just stupid, it is mendacious.
So, you are saying the sun has nothing to do with global temperatures?
The greenhouse effect is not a myth. Greenhouse gases obviously change the climate as has been proven during several major climatic shifts in the Earth's history.
One should always inquire about which comes first, the chicken or the egg:
"(1) correlation does not prove causation, (2) cause must precede effect, and (3) when attempting to evaluate claims of causal relationships between different parameters, it is important to have as much data as possible in order to weed out spurious correlations."
"Consider, for example, the study of Fischer et al. (1999), who examined trends of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature derived from Antarctic ice core data that extended back in time a quarter of a million years. Over this extended period, the three most dramatic warming events experienced on earth were those associated with the terminations of the last three ice ages; and for each of these climatic transitions, earth's air temperature rose well in advance of any increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact, the air's CO2 content did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Such findings have been corroborated by Mudelsee (2001), who examined the leads/lags of atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature over an even longer time period, finding that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years over the past 420,000 years.
Other studies have also documented a fundamental violation of the cause-must-precede-effect principle in the climate alarmist hypothesis of CO2-induced global warming. From a high-resolution temperature and atmospheric CO2 record spanning the period 60 to 20 thousand years ago, Indermuhle et al. (2000) examined the CO2/temperature relationship at four distinct periods when temperatures rose by approximately 2°C and CO2 by about 20 ppm. One type of statistical test performed on the data suggested that the shifts in the air's CO2 content during these intervals lagged those in air temperature by approximately 900 years; while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag time of 1200 years."
[ see also: Yokoyama et al. (2000), Clark and Mix (2000), Petit et al. (1999), Staufer et al. (1998)]
- "Other studies periodically demonstrate a complete uncoupling of CO2 and temperature "
[see: Cheddadi et al., (1998), Raymo et al., 1998, Pagani et al. (1999), Pearson and Palmer (1999), Pearson and Palmer, (2000) ]
- "Considered in their entirety, these several results present a truly chaotic picture with respect to any possible effect that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have on global temperature. Clearly, atmospheric CO2 is not the all-important driver of global climate change the climate alarmists make it out to be."
High levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide necessary for the
termination of global glaciation
Raymond T. Pierrehumbert
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, The University of Chicago,
Nature Vol 429 10 June 2004
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/NatureSnowballMelt.pdfThe possibility that the Earth suffered episodes of global glaciation as recently as the Neoproterozoic period, between about 900 and 543 million years ago, has been widely discussed1–3. Termination of such ‘hard snowball Earth’ climate states has been proposed to proceed from accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere4. Many salient aspects of the snowball scenario depend critically on the threshold of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations needed to trigger deglaciation2,5. Here I present simulations with a general circulation model, using elevated carbon dioxide levels to estimate this deglaciation threshold. The model simulates several phenomena that are expected to be significant in a ‘snowball Earth’ scenario, but which have not been considered in previous studies with less sophisticated models, such as a reduction of vertical temperature gradients in winter, a reduction in summer tropopause height, the effect of snow cover and a reduction in cloud greenhouse effects. In my simulations, the system remains far short of deglaciation even at atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations of 550 times the present levels (0.2 bar of CO2). I find that at much higher carbon dioxide levels, deglaciation is unlikely unless unknown feedback cycles that are not captured in the model come into effect.
All that you have to do is to compare Venus and Mars to realize that the greenhouse effect is real. Claiming the contrary is really stupid.
And be careful to at least figure out what "greenhouse" effect is responsible, there is more than one factor involved in planetary atmospheres for what erroneously has become a catchall phrase in every phenomena that might have something to do with weather and climate anywhere in the solar system.
Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994 - Volume 2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
"Twenty-six million miles from Earth, in an orbit much closer to the Sun, Venus spins through space with a furnace-like surface temperature of more than 800o Fahrenheit (F) (426.5o Celsius [C]), which is much hotter than its proximity to the Sun would explain. Scientists used to believe that Venus fell victim to the greenhouse effect because 96 percent of its atmosphere is carbon dioxide, with nitrogen accounting for almost all the remainder [26]. It is now generally agreed within the planetary atmospheres community that carbon dioxide alone would lead to an average temperature of less than 25oC. The primary reason that Venus is warmer than this is the presence of sulfuric acid cloud cover over the entire planet, extending from about 50 kilometers to 70 kilometers from the surface."
I don't see stated anywhere in the article where the greenhouse effect is a myth. The major thrust of the IPCC and those who believe the lies of Gore is that CO2 is the primary driving factor causing climate change. All other factors are completely ignore or minimized by those who are rabid about CO2. Many "true" scientists are wary of the strong influence of politics in this debate; and with good reason. The so called solutions by these negative control freaks will wreck the US and world economy for absolutely no benefit. Roy Spencer a renowned NASA scientists made a salient point about how the current climate models almost wholly ignore the role of precipitation in moderating the Earth's heat load. Anyone with a rational mind has to question the raving totalitarian approach of the likes of Gore and the leftists over this issue. Hopefully, the tide will turn against these lunatics who want to destroy Capitalism (what's left of it ) in America and permanently condemn many in the third world to a future with no hope of improvement.
"All that you have to do is to compare Venus and Mars to realize that the greenhouse effect is real"
You need to do some more study on the subject.
Venus and Earth have nothing in common but their size.
It's unfortunate that someone a few decades ago used the term "greenhouse" to describe the conditions on Venus, and although it's an inaccurate description, the term stuck. Planetary atmospheres are not closed systems like a greenhouse is thought to be. They easily radiate energy outward as well as absorb. Density of the atmosphere has more to do with its temperature stability than any other factor. Venus is so much hotter than Earth because it has a tremendously dense atmosphere, not so much because of what it is comprised of. BTW, WATER is the greatest single heat retaining gas in our atmosphere; CO2 is in the small single digits of percentage.
"Greenhouse gases obviously change the climate as has been proven during several major climatic shifts in the Earth's history. All that you have to do is to compare Venus and Mars to realize that the greenhouse effect is real."
Actually, percentage-wise, Mars's atmosphere contains much more carbon dioxide than Venus. And yet Mars is much colder than Venus. So, care to try that again?
Could distance from the Sun have anything to do with it?? /s
Venus..67 mil
Mars...140 mil.
Earth..93 mil.
There was admittedly no satisfactory explanation of such high temperature of Venus in the frame of the accepted notions. Greenhouse effect could not explain so high a temperature, nor could radioactivity, decaying for billions of years. The Mariner II, the space vehicle that passed Venus in December, 1962, was instrumented to detect whether the heat is real and as high as 600. It found it real and a full 800. It found also, that the night side of Venus is, if anything, hotter than the day side and that light does not penetrate the cloud cover. It must be gloomy and bleak under this cover, it is stated in the Mariner report by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory; very little greenhouse effect could realize itself under such conditions...
Worlds in Collision. Immanuel Velikovsky. Preface to the paperback edition.
Actually, there is zero evidence for a change of a few parts per million of gases causing the atmosphere to suddenly start to behave like a blanket. The attribution of discerned prehistoric climate change to so-called greenhouse gases is entirely unsupported by evidence.