CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 146,665
- 69,802
- 2,330
There are only two ways that the surface of the Earth gets heat. One is from the sun.
Joseph Fourier established that when you combine the albedo of the earth with the amount of sunlight it recieves, you should have a much colder earth. He reasoned that there had to be something in the atmosphere that trapped outgoing radiation.
The second is the absorption of outgoing heat by the atmosphere. The last fifty years has seen a slight decrease in the Total Solar Irradiance. So we are getting very slightly less heat from the sun.
But we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. The amount of CH4 by 150%. Increased nitrous oxides, and put chemicals in the atmosphere for which there are no natural analogs. Not only no natural analogs, but some are more than 10,000 times as effective as CO2.
In the last inter-glacial, the increase in CO2 reached 300 ppm. And the sea level was 3 to 6 meters higher than today. We are presently at 390 ppm CO2. During the past 2 million years, the CH4 seldom reached 800 ppt. Yet today we have pushed that level to over 1800 ppt.
So what you are stating is that these increases have no effect? That with the solar TSI in decline, but the globe warming, there has to be some other reason for the increase in heat? Your politics are overpowering your reasoning, Sis.
Global Warming?
Climate Change?
Unstable Climate?
What are you calling it today?
We're stating that you can't show how your "Theory" works in a lab so, as science, it's hold no more weight than astrology or phrenology, Enviromarxist Warmer
That all you got, quibbling over names?!?! I don't care if you call it the "Greenhouse Effect", "Blanket Effect" or "Pot Lid Effect", if enough CO2 is in the atmosphere temps WILL rise. It's simple logic!!!
Quibbling? When you can't decide if Manmade Global Warming means things are getting warmer or colder ( ) that's not "quibbling"