SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,966
- 280
- Thread starter
- #41
you never explain in your own words what you think is happening, so I have a hard time figuring out where you are going wrong. perhaps you could give me run through of what you think happens in a non-GHG atmosphere. do you think it moderates the high and low temperature swings, how? do you think the average temp is higher than without an atmosphere, why?
Just go ahead and make up an argument for me and argue against that Ian, you have been arguing against your own fabricated arguments rather than my own position since I first got here. Why stop now?
Your own comment regarding planets with no atmosphere is evidence enough of my statement. The links I provided pretty much cover my position. The temperature of the planet can be derived without a manufactured greenhouse effect...and by the same process, the temperature of every other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere can be accurately derived while deriving the temperature using the greenhouse effect as described by climate science only works here and then only by constant tweaking and judicious injections of magical thinking.
You believe in magic.. I get it. You believe. You believe. You believe. You believe in hypothesis and theory even when observation don't agree...you believe in hypothesis and theory over your own eyes. You believe. I can't do much about that.
I knew you would be afraid to reply.
Reply to what? Your distorted interpretation of what I have already said...to which you would then further distort and ask for more replies? As I said, the links I provided pretty much sum up my position. Argue that the magical greenhouse effect as described by climate science is more likely than the atmospheric thermal effect predicted by and supported by the actual laws of physics. No magical multipliers needed.