Chemical Forums

General Forums => Generic Discussion => Topic started by: BigKetchup on January 31, 2020, 02:57:59 PM

Title: Some more chemical nonsense disproving climate change; can you comment?
Post by: BigKetchup on January 31, 2020, 02:57:59 PM
I don't know enough about chemistry to really refute this but I'm wondering what you think, check it out.  I'm wondering you think.

Coincidence is not cause plus GHGs do not actually do anything.

By reflecting away 30% of the ISR the terrestrial albedo, sustained by the atmosphere, makes the earth cooler than it would be without that albedo/atmosphere.

Because of the non-radiative heat transfer properties of the terrestrial surface BB LWIR radiative energy upwelling from the surface is not possible. There is zero “extra” energy for the GHGs to “trap.”

The surface is warmer than ToA per Q = U A dT same as the insulated envelope of a house.

If the above statements are correct the greenhouse effect does not exist.

Zero GHE, Zero GHG warming, Zero CAGW.

It’s that simple.
It’s all science.
It’s all over.


(https://scontent.flas1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/84108603_2623985724551607_4101162677793980416_o.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_ohc=kMpRNy8slsMAX92l0xE&_nc_ht=scontent.flas1-2.fna&oh=41916ed6b48fa1c0d4771f29d7f747cd&oe=5EC8C436)
Title: Re: Some more chemical nonsense disproving climate change; can you comment?
Post by: Corribus on January 31, 2020, 03:12:10 PM
Without any definitions for acronyms and other jargon, it's impossible to evaluate.
Title: Re: Some more chemical nonsense disproving climate change; can you comment?
Post by: BigKetchup on February 01, 2020, 06:45:49 PM
Without any definitions for acronyms and other jargon, it's impossible to evaluate.

The guy who wrote it is a quack.  Claims to be an expert.  I called him out on it and he refused to respond.  The very virtue that he's using unknown acronyms is proof that he's incoherent.  But that's not surprise.
Title: Re: Some more chemical nonsense disproving climate change; can you comment?
Post by: Enthalpy on February 03, 2020, 02:49:18 PM
GreenHouse Gas, Incoming Solar Radiation... are not completely unknown. But I dislike acronyms. Not every reader works in this field, not everyone is a native English speaker. The very minimum is to provide a list of acronyms with explanations, and it would be better to avoid them completely where possible. I understand their usefulness in chemical reactions, not in satellite construction. Many people use tons of them only because they saw other people do it and imagine it looks professional.

About this text: sorry, it seems to me that there is nothing to understand, hence nothing to refute. But anyway, the greenhouse effect, prior to excess CO2 injected in the atmosphere by humans since the industrial revolution, already made our Earth some 15K warmer. The mean temperature without greenhouse effect can be estimated by hand.