Yahoo 知識+ 將於 2021 年 5 月 4 日 (美國東岸時間) 停止服務,而 Yahoo 知識+ 網站現已轉為僅限瀏覽模式。其他 Yahoo 資產或服務,或你的 Yahoo 帳戶將不會有任何變更。你可以在此服務中心網頁進一步了解 Yahoo 知識+ 停止服務的事宜,以及了解如何下載你的資料。
Is there any reason to be skeptical of the greenhouse effect itself?
Leaving aside the question of the consequences of warming and what we should do about it; is there any reason to be skeptical of the greenhouse effect itself?
Is there any reason to be skeptical of the GHE as the reason Earth's surface temperature is around 33C higher than it needs to be for equilibrium, and for the increase in greenhouse gasses to be the main, if not the only reason, for the current warming?I
If there is, then exactly what is it you are skeptical of and what alternative explanation(s) do you think more credible?
6 個解答
- 匿名1 年前最愛解答
Personally, I don't think there is. Evidence for it is out there for everyone to see.
Ever notice that cloudy winter nights stay warmer than clear ones? That's because of downward IR radiation from the clouds, which tend to be warmer than the clear sky.
Ever notice how summer nights tend to cool down much slower than winter nights? Thank the greater amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, radiating more power downward at you.
If you want to explore this further, you can get yourself an IR thermometer and point it at the sky. You'll find that it varies a lot, depending on the weather and whether the sky is clear or cloudy. The thermometer is responding to the downward radiation from the atmosphere, and since water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas (and is variable in amount) you can even use the temperature that you read on clear days to estimate the integrated water vapor in the sky above you (what's called "precipitable water"). There's a nice article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society by the electronics genius Forrest Mims about how to do that. Reference given in the comments.
- ?Lv 71 年前
Theory based on the properties of CO2 suggested that, at the current rate we pump it into the atmosphere, we should expect a 0.2 Watts per square metre per decade increase in radiative forcing.
When we measured the greenhouse impact of CO2 over a decade at two different locations in the US, the experimentally observed increase in radiative forcing was 0.2 Watts per square metre per decade.
In other words ... theory predicted the greenhouse effect and the impact CO2 has. Then we measured it experimentally and found the theory was spot on.
Arguing the greenhouse effect is wrong or dodgy science is like arguing the world is flat ... these people are cranks and should only be allowed plastic spoons.
- CowboyLv 61 年前
The proof is outside your window - global warming/climate change is here now and it'll stay with us for quite awhile. So all ya gotta do is pull your head out of your *** and take a look at what's happening across the globe....
- ?Lv 61 年前
Darwin here is some history that I submitted to a question recently, that debunks the theory at its source.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20200...
The GHE theory is a thought experiment, unable to be proven experimentally and is a farce.
Any diagram depicting this farce shows a blueprint for a perpetual motion engine that violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics. CO2 does not trap "heat" as heat is not a commodity.
- 1 年前
You keep bringing this topic up. I remember the last time and I'm not going to search and link it, but if I remember correctly Solar submitted a video that debunks the whole GHE as flat earth physics and political climate science.
- 匿名1 年前
it was so cold this morning i saw a socialist with his hands in his own pockets