View Single Post
Old 28th June 2010, 06:26 PM   #51
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,101
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
However such reasoning in favor of a greenhouse effect is exactly what I criticize as ideologic:
The fact that the clouds (at 60-70 km height) interact with incoming radiation is explained by normal physics. Yet an analogous interaction of outgoing radiation is explained by special (i.e. greenhouse-effect) physics. At least on Earth, clouds significantly slow down cooling at night.
(I do not call into question the physical principles of the greenhouse effect. Like solids and liquids, also gasses have "colors", determining the interaction with radiation. A change in the composition of an atmosphere can make it "darker" in the infrared, whereas its transparency in the visible and ultraviolet is not (significantly) affected.)

Cheers, Wolfgang
www.pandualism.com
There is nothing special about the physics involved in the greenhouse effect. It arises from standard physics, and would do without ever having been observed. The fact is that it was observed, before it was explained, when Boyle's Law and thermodynamics were already established science. They do not explain the temperature at the Earth's surface, but you're trying to make them explain temperatures on Venus.

Describing reflection of radiation from Venus's atmosphere as an "interaction" but the greenhouse effect of that atmosphere (which is an interaction with radiation) as "special physics" is not going to cut any ice here.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top