Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: editor-surveyor
Or are you still clinging to the fudged Hadley CRU ‘data?’

Am I a bitter clinger? No, not at all, see, I am a skeptic of AGW, a strong skeptic. I have seen the data and have been following the whole thing for nearly 20 years. And as of yet, I am still not convinced that there is any AGW. Any data I see FOR it, falls apart when examined. I still think it is worth investigating, mostly because I hope it all collapses like a house of cards.

53 posted on 08/30/2011 2:43:52 PM PDT by Paradox (Obnoxious, Bumbling, Absurd, Maladroit, Assinine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: Paradox

The reason that all of it falls apart is that the “greenhouse theory” itself fell apart.

An atmosphere is a net loser of energy. The reflected energy vastly exceeds the retained energy for a simple reason: the greatest source of energy (the sun) is outside of the atmosphere, and more than 90% of the retention of energy from the atmosphere is the simple heat sink effect of the lower portion, IOW the water vapor.

On the other hand a real greenhouse doesn’t reflect much at all, but it allows most of the solar energy to enter the greenhouse, the exact opposite of what the atmosphere does, and the heated air is not allowed to escape as it would outside.


72 posted on 08/30/2011 4:40:55 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Sarah Palin - 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson