Dirac
Lv 4
Dirac asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 2 months ago

How many of you global warming deniers reject the greenhouse effect and "back radiation"?

Update:

I'm curious because that means you're not just going against the "97%" consensus, you're pretty much going against 100% of scientists, including Lindzen, Curry, Spencer, etc.

Update 2:

LOL, the troll's "irrefutable evidence" is that he changed the answer on one of his sock puppet accounts to anonymous, and I happened to see the name before it was changed. The only thing irrefutable about it was that he was caught using a sock puppet account. I would be happy to provide proof of my jobs to a trusted third parties such as Elizabeth and graphicconception. I've told the troll to work out the details through email or other means, but he hasn't.

Update 3:

The troll originally claimed he had "irrefutable evidence", when I pointed out what it was, he deleted it from his answer. Even he knows his evidence is garbage.

Update 4:

The troll now "Anonymous" keeps changing his answer, but never manages to answer the question. He may have a learning disability.

10 Answers

Relevance
  • 2 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    The greenhouse effect is so well understood that really, anyone questioning it is just plain wrong. It's in the same category as people questioning if the Earth is round or whether continents move - people can believe what they want but it doesn't mean they're right.

    The maximum temperature an object can reach is basically the point at which the rate heat is being radiated, conducted and/or convected to the external environment matches the rate at which heat is being supplied to the object. If you reduce the rate heat is being transferred to that external environment, the temperature of the object increases. It's why we insulate houses.

    Fortunately, our atmosphere has gases that absorb infrared and re-emit it in random directions. The temperature of the Earth is higher with these gases than without, and if we increase the concentration, the temperature of the planet must also rise.

    It's entirely what the laws of thermodynamics tells us has to happen.

  • 2 months ago

    Don't rise to the bait. You have said what you do for a living several times and I believe you. Why not? He is only trying to wind you up and get a reaction.

    I have honed a "skip" function which is very useful on the internet!

  • 2 months ago

    Climate changes. It does so all the time. The question is whether and how much CO2 to do with.

    • Dirac
      Lv 4
      2 months agoReport

      Are you illiterate? Answer the question that was asked.

  • 2 months ago

    Only a small minority. Only uneducated idiots and liars who prey on the gullible.

    Even skeptics like Roy Spencer say that the Greenhouse effect is real.

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-rad...

    I don't know why anyone would have difficulty understanding the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared and gets warmer. Basically the same principle as a heat lamp.

    • Perhaps, the greenhouse effect might be reduced if there were fewer industrialised nations who are producing the carbon emissions?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 2 months ago

    Elizabeth has the funniest answer. Apparently, impractical people are unaware that air and heat can escape your house. These are the same people who disdain farmers and think meat comes from the grocery store.

    • Zany Dog2 months agoReport

      No one accepts that air gets hopelessly trapped near the earth. Oh, wait a minute. Alarmists do that.

  • 2 months ago

    Water vapor critically reduces the direct emission of surface emitted thermal radiation to space. In summary, it does this in three key ways:

    • Water vapor absorbs most of the two-thirds of the surface thermal emission of infrared radiation that is absorbed in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide and the other infrared-active gases also participate in this function as minor partners.

    • The creation of water vapor reduces the surface emission of infrared radiation at the surface as a competing surface cooling mechanism by soaking up heat in the process of water evaporation. This is a result of energy conservation. Energy that goes into evaporating water cannot also go into photon emission. Carbon dioxide plays no role in this mechanism at all.

    • The condensation of water vapor at substantial altitudes in the troposphere provides a large store of energy to be radiated from the upper troposphere into space. There is no corresponding role for carbon dioxide.

    The fact of the large emission of radiation by infrared-active molecules at the top of the troposphere also allows thermals to come into play as a means of reducing surface radiation emission and as a feed of energy to the upper troposphere from whence it can be radiated into space. It is then this radiation to space from the upper troposphere that determines the temperature of the upper troposphere. This in turn allows the gravitational temperature gradient to increase the surface temperature relative to the temperature of the upper troposphere from which most of the Earth's thermal radiation into space is emitted.

    Without greenhouse gases, the gravity-induced temperature gradient still exists, but the temperature anchor has to be the Earth's surface since it is the only possible source for thermal radiation to space. The infrared-active gases do provide substantial warming of the Earth's surface, but contrary to the usual claim that it is due simply to absorbing surface emitted thermal infrared in the atmosphere, it is really due to all three of the bulleted mechanisms above. Only water vapor plays a role in two of the three critical mechanisms and it is very dominant in the remaining mechanism.

    When this is understood, it is clear that water vapor is a much more dominant actor in the warming of the Earth than is recognized in the general settled science viewpoint. When only the first bulleted mechanism is said to be the reason for a warmer Earth, carbon dioxide seems to play a bigger role than it really does.

    The partnership of water vapor with the temperature gradient in the atmosphere due to gravity provides us with a much warmer Earth. This partnership is completely lost in the so-called settled science. When the water vapor and gravity partnership is properly understood, the very minor role of carbon dioxide is better understood. When that is understood, the wrongheadedness of catastrophic man-made global warming is understood.

    Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D.

  • 2 months ago

    I reject the AGE. The Astrophysicist Postma video is pure common sense and highlights the junk science the IPCC uses to fool the Public.

  • 2 months ago

    I do.  I never been a believer in mass climate hysteria.  You may not be old enough to know about it, but they're always telling us something different is going to wipe us out, climate-wise.  With every "doomsday prophecies" that turns out to not be true, they just change it to something else.  I've already lived through 4 or 5 of them already (it's really hard to keep count).  

    I've had enough of it.  It's way pass funny now.  Young people are being indoctrinated into believing the world is going to end before they reach old age, because they're impressionable and don't know any better.  I grew up with all sorts of crap that was supposed to take us out in the next decade or two, and none of it ever came to fruition.  

    People believing in this stuff are being trolled so hard.  Al Gore is laughing so hard, right now, that it's make him fart, leaving a bigger carbon foot print than his private plane.  Show me the findings that says humans have more of an environmental impact than the sun (I mean, we're in the 'solar system'), and I might consider looking at the rest of the science backing these claims.

    Help me out, I don't understand how sun rays are able to pass through one side carbon clouds to reach the surface of the planet, but are unable to pass through the other to escape.  Los Angeles has had a visible smog cloud that can be view 200 miles away for many decades, yet the whether trends there aren't anymore abnormal than anywhere else.  

    You'd think if we'd see drastic climate change anywhere, we'd first see it in the world's most polluted cites before anywhere else.  But we don't, because it is all a rouse that plays on the generational fear of the world coming to an end, as a way of controlling people's mind's and behavior.  It is a falsehood that has been allowed to spread on a massive level, on accepting the lie that CO2 is "toxic pollutant", rather than a gas produced naturally in nature for billions of years, mainly by volcanic activity. 

    • Southpaw
      Lv 7
      2 months agoReport

      Excellent answer, ever heard of Carla Denyer?
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-47570654
      So not a dispute restricted to the USA.
      Seems more like a new left wing religion to me, regards, Bob UK.

  • cruis
    Lv 4
    2 months ago

    “Greenhouse gases” are not able to “trap” the infrared energy that gets radiated from earth's surface. The gas can't be trapped. It eventually returns to space.

    Your "back radiation" is something you made up to explain your theory.

    There is no heat zone in our upper atmosphere. Find it and I will give you my house.

    Please move the rest of your "question" to Mental Health.

    Source(s): basic physics
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    There is no 97% consensus.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.