[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fwd: Greenhouse

Kelly wrote:

>>P.S. If you read that rather small page, I would really be interested in
>>what you think of it.
>Not a bad discussion and debunking of greenhouse effect myths such as "The
>greenhouse effect is caused when gases in the atmosphere behave as a
>blanket and trap radiation which is then reradiated to the earth." etc...
>The author seems about as frustrated with nonscience being bounced around
>and I am.
>The statement that "the surface of the earth receives nearly twice as much
>energy from the atmosphere as it does from the sun." might be a bit
>confusing.  Obviously the atmospher acts as a transport mechanism not an
>energy source in the true sence (I.E. the atmosphere doesn't generate any
>energy).  But thats a comparativly minor point.

Yes, I see what you mean.

>I was a little suprized you brought it up, given that this doesn't discus
>global warming or the so called "greenhouse effect" (i.e. artificial
>greenhouse gases altering atmospheric IR transmitions) that we've been
>arguing about.

Yes, I also read an other page, that was quite large (that one of the CSIRO)

Greenhouse basics: 

I referred ro "Bad Greenhouse" because it made so clear what the main
effects were and because it compared a normal greenhouse with the greenhouse