It does matter what the cause is because if it is all natural,
then green house gases are not an issue and we can burn away like mad without increasing the warming.
Not exact matches
CO2 is less
then 2 % of all
green house gases.
So called
Green House Gases work by absorbing
then re-emitting IR.
And to add to that, there are plenty of other
green house gases that display properties similar to Co2 in much larger quantities which are more effected by natural events
then man made events.
And
then show his work and how the
green house gas effect has to be supplied to correctly calculate temperature of it.
Never — in all the mathematics I studied and used — did any mathematical formula ever calculate temperature of some
gas or atmospheric mix
then have to refer to a»
green house effect» because the laws of
If AGW is proved to be a problem and it is far from proven that it is, and if you guys were fair dinkum about reducing
green house emissions,
then Australia with hundreds of years of natural
gas reserves could easily convert nearly everything to run on that and cut GH emissions by 90 % with very little economic pain.
But don't take to much notice of me as I also believe that Advection i.e. the kind of horizontal air movements that follow isobaric surfaces and therefore are predominantly horizontal) have got more of a
Green House Effect (GHE) than does a radiation circuit, of say 324 W / m ² originally removed from the surface, and
then returned via
Green House Gases (GHGs)-- which, by the way, show no sign of having warmed at all (no hot spot) But even so, when somehow the same 324 W / m ² are delivered back to the surface for absorption it is supposed to be getting warmer.
Then we lose the
green house gas advantage.
Scientifically the prescription for reducing
green house emissions is clear: substitute
gas for coal while minimizing methane emissions using proven and available technology, and
then move toward low carbon energy sources as quickly as technically and economically feasible.
Beginning (near the turn of the 20th century) with the theoretical studies of Svante Arrhenius about how infrared absorbing
gases help determine the surface temperature of the earth;
then spurred by the reexamination of those models in the 1950's, by Roger Revelle, and in the 1960's, by Jule Charney; and
then James Hansen's modeling of the unique
green -
house -
gas (GHG) forcing of the very hot atmospheric temperature of Venus — climatologists and geophysicists began to vigorously reexamine such models in greater detail.