|
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm assuming it for the same reason that if you build a greenhouse it will get hot inside. The extra radiation is trapped, not reflected back to space. Incidentally, one of these gases, CO2 is a big part of the atmosphere of Venus iirc. Pretty fucking warm there.
Well then you're taking the term "greenhouse gasses" too literally, perhaps victim of semantics propaganda. "Greenhouse gas" is just a buzzword that implies warming by its nature.
Greenhouses are made of glass, and are small. There is no glass casing surrounding the large atmosphere we have, so the conditions are incomparable.
Venus is indeed pretty fucking hot compared to Earth. It's closer to the sun.
I don't think there's a consensus on why hot water freezes quicker than cold water, but anyways let's leave that to MMM.
Oh there is. I might not have hit the nail on the head, but it's definitely been explained. Mojo can indeed clear this one up, no doubt.
But by this logic, Venus should not be much hotter than Earth.
Venus is closer to the sun. Such mechanics maintain a realtive sense of thermal balance, it doesn't maintain a certain temperature.
The people with the vested interest in arguing for climate change are outnumbered by a fairly large margin by the people for whom the reverse is true. Oil companies, for example.
Why do we assume oil companies are losing money as a result of global warming? Because they are so heavily regulated? It just means it's impossible for anyone to compete with the established companies. I have no idea, but like I said earlier, I don't expect it to be costing big business money, quite the opposite.
It kind of goes back to our previous discussion about nutrition. You can't do the experiment that proves conclusively that eating a healthy diet is good for you. So nutrition is a pseudoscience and you can just eat ice cream all day every day and you'll be fine.
Well it's not quite the same, because experiment will support the theory that nutrition is important. If you feed me a diet of bread and water for a month, while you eat a balanced diet, and every day we had a 100m race, my performance would deteriorate while yours would probably improve slightly, or remain stable. Certainly you would outperform me. Thus, the theory would hold up to experiment.
Can the same be said of climate change? What experiment can be done to put to test the theories?
|