Re: The CO2 Effect Is Tiny

Whata Fool wrote:
> Earl Evleth <evleth@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  wrote:
>
>> On 30/04/08 10:57, in article
>> 3bc983f4-0b38-457a-85ba-f5e42de8c98d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "chemist" <tom-bolger@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> CO2 is physically incapable of
>>> "greenhouse gas " activity.
>>
>>
>> Without it the earth would be a ball of ice.
>
>      Can you post a link that tells how the nitrogen and oxygen
> atmosphere would cool with no GHGs (including and especially water
> va****)?
>
>      The fact that the day and night on Earth are 28 times shorter
> than on the moon means that the temperature would not be as great
> without any atmosphere at all.
>      The fact that there is a rather massive atmosphere means
> some considerable buffering would exist because of the atmosphere.
>      The fact that there is atmospheric pressure means that thermal
> transfer must occur in a more predictable and  regular way.
>      The fact that the ground would get hot in daytime and transfer
> thermal energy to the air means the air would be warmer than the
> average temperature of what the Earth would be without an atmosphere.
>      The fact that N2 radiates and absorbs IR an extremely small
> amount, and O2 radiates and absorbs IR very little, has to mean the
> air would warm considerably over time.
>
>      I challenge anybody to offer rational physics that says the
> Earth would have a mean temperature of below zero C over all
> latitudes.
>
>      I challenge you, I challenge anybody.
>
>      Please stop repeating these outhouse rumors about the role of
> GreenHouse Gases holding temperatures up higher than they would be
> without GHGs.
>      Clouds are not GHGs, so water droplet clouds must be included
> in any calculation relating to GHGs.    Clouds do prevent radiation
> to space.
>      The surface of Earth would vary considerably without any clouds
> or GHGs because surface radiation to space is very effective, but the
> air would not cool at all without GHGs.

  ROFLMAO  Cite please!