You mean, in the absence of an atmosphere, the night side of a planet falls straight to absolute zero?
Greenhouse theory predicts things which are not observed in the real atmosphere. But rather than deal with them, claim that everything change in the atmosphere, warm or cold, is predicted by greenhouse theory when it doesn't.
No. The night sky, above the atmosphere radiates at about 4 degrees Kelvin,
and yes that has an impact on the plantary surface temperature.
The first few posts on this topic were made by a strident and very incorrect "scneibster' who incorrectly assumed that the temperature calculation was a simple one based on black body radiation. That is (it should be clear) nonsense. Albedo and the spectral characteristics of the atmosphere are rcitical to any argument. The relationships are not simple and each 'effect' has other side effects which may either increase or decrease the supposed warming trend.
The problem is highly complex - I hope we see this now. Let me make an analogy. We have another highly complex system in biology, but in the case of biology, unlike environmental sciences, we can create experiments which are substantially comparable to the cases of interest. Yet there are differences. I was just reading through the data sheet on a new medication.
There was some evidence of a tertogenic effect of this med at high doses in a particular breed of rat, but not in other test animals. There was a possible carcinogenic effect at very high long term doses in some animals, but not others. So what exactly are the implications for normal use in humans ? It's very difficult to say anything definitive. The big pharma company that developed this medication makes very cautious statements and careful disclosures regarding the extrapolated impact of this medication on humans.
Now in contrast we have environmental scientists who, like astronomers and cosmologists, are unable to implement useful experiments. They must be satisfied with observation of existing environments. So exactly how many planetary atmospheric systems have environmentalists studied ? How often were their models demonstrated to accurately predict surface temperature ? Given the single local planet as their primary object of study - just how good is the quality of long-term temperature records and records of atmospheric gaseous content, of volcanic activity ? Obviously the answer is that this observations that inform this area of study have severe limitations. Despite this the recent claims of accuracy and consensus by all, are remarkably lacking in caution and are not at all circumspect.
If environmental scientists were as subject to law suit for damages as drug companies they would, I think, be making more careful statements about what data is currently suggesting, rather than jumping on the fear-mongering bandwagon.
No science is not about common sense and it is also not about concensus. I don't really care if an argument is proposed by an illustrious committee nor a 16 yo girl. As in any rational discussion , we should evaluate the arguments and not the proponents.
We should all be concerned that human activity has *apparently* caused a significant increase in atmospheric CO2. No one can argue that pollution via CO2, NO, ozone depleting chemicals and ground-water polluting chemicals is a net good. Also the amount of phosphorus and nitrogen that human activity makes available as runoff chemicals has a large net positive impact on the amount of plant growth - which is also generally viewed as a negative.
So whether one believes in the catastrophic global warming hypothesis or more simply in the clearly evidenced idea that current human activity is having a major impact wrt conventional pollution - what can practically be done about it ?
What force would compel less developed countries from burning fossil fuels even if more advanced countries avoid these ? What force will cause a roughly 1/3rd population decrease that would be necessary to avoid creating atmospherically fixed nitrogen for farming ? (it's estimated that 30-40% of all the nitrogen in the average human comes from a chemical plant).
Let's get past the dubious climate hypothesis. What can be done about it is a very intractable problem.
