|
Posted on 09/24/2020 8:56:54 AM PDT by kathsua
“Why don’t Conservatives call it a disproven theory??”
Whenever Conservatives speak, the ears of leftists fall off.
How did he prevent the rock salt dissolving in the rain?
GW for Dummies (Fun 12 min video...With actual Scientific Facts)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4Bc2WCsdE
CO2 prevents some IR from instantly escaping to space.
This is why they ditched the name “greenhouse theory”: They say it was used originally metaphorically/analogously, but there was too much confusion over whether it meant literally. Obviously, greenhouses aren’t made out of carbon dioxode, either.
The biggest problem with the carbon heat-capture theory is simply that once the atmosphere is opaque to a certain wavelength of light, it doesn’t get more and more opaque.
I liken it to a blanket: If you put on one blanket, it keeps you warmer. Putting on a second blanket will keep you warmer, but not twice as warm. Pretty soon adding more and more blankets doesn’t make you much warmer at all.
Or to be somewhat less metaphorical: start with a room with a glass roof. Throw some packing peanuts on it. Because they don’t fit tightly and are somewhat translucent, they continue to let light in. Double the packing peanuts, and they let less light in. Eventually, adding more packing peanuts doesn’t effect the amount of light you add.
Physics, and by extension science in general, was once called, “Natural philosophy.” Hence, scientists receives “Philosophy Doctorates,” or PhDs. Eventually, the term covered liberal arts as well, but Philosophical Magazine was a fine name for a science magazine.
What? That greenhouses work? Because it's not disproven. They work all over the world.
One person's old experiment doesn't disprove anything. Especially something in such every day usage.
Probably by doing the experiment on a sunny day?
There’s still a philosophical underpinning to science too, even if many people want to ignore it in favor of pretending that science is wholly empirical.
I saw the cover of Michael Faraday’s treatise, I could read the Latin, it contained “Natural Philosophy”. Without Faraday’s discovery of electromagnetic induction, our progress in electricity would have been delayed by decades. He wasn’t so great in math, but he could do rudimentary algebra. Today you need Trig, but the effect of Trig can be done algebraically, as a revolutionary Australian math professor has shown.
Btt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
