View source for Talk:Greenhouse gas

Ozone is not a greenhouse gas, its important (to us) function in the upper atmosphere is to block most of the sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation from reaching the biosphere. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, perhaps you could write a bit about the [[ozone layer]], [[ozone depletion]], or the [[ozone hole]]. Also, do you know anything about the connection between [[ozone]], [[UV radiation]], and [[skin cancer]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Um, Ozone is a greenhouse gas. It also blocks UV radiation. There's some amount of a tradeoff here. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:47, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::Well then, we'd better fix my removal of it! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Merged from Greenhouse effect==
I don't think we should use the term "greenhouse effect" for this article. The earth's atmosphere does not work like a greenhouse at all.

Using a misleading term is a mistake. It opens a [[Pandora's box]] of [[deceit]]. We should only use accurate terms, ones which do not conjure up any misleading notions. 

We should tell the truth plainly, in a way which inspires trust. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 06:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

I looked at this article because I am a meteorology student (and a Republican yea! red states rule!) 

The article has some wrong facts.  Saying the gassses emit a different frequency depending on temperature is wrong.  The co2 always emits the same frequency but different energy depending on hte temperature.  THis has to do with the physics about how the molecules vibrate and give off energy.  They vibrate faster when the temperature is hot but the wavelength stays the same.  I think there are some more mistakes but I ahve to look them up.  I am afraid to edit the article because I am a new person on this cite but the science has to be right so people stop makeing fun of conserapedia. So somebody who has priveledges should fix it. [[User:FredGriggs|FredGriggs]] 23:36, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

: You have the privileges.  Don't be shy.  Be as aggressive as [[liberals]] are, but without their [[deceit]].  Ha ha ha.  Welcome, FredGriggs!  Edit the entry as you think it should be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:22, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, and while you're at it, please help me give the basic physics of the atmosphere. Before we explain any theories about a "problem" (see [[climate crisis]]), we should explain the normal operation of system.

:As I understand it, wide temperature swings on the surface of large astromical bodies are normal - if they don't have an [[atmosphere]]. The [[Moon]] is a case in point. 

:But having an atmosphere keeps temperature fairly constant between day and night. Deserts have the widest variation, but areas with vegetation and/or clouds have less of a daily variation. 

:Can you supply any information about this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:40, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Narrow scope of this page==
On this page, the term "greenhouse effect" isn't used with its wide, inductive meaning, which is that of the effect that works like in a greenhouse. In other words, the term "greenhouse effect" has a much wider meaning than what this page here portrays it to be. The term "greenhouse effect" is not only used in meteorology. The problem is that on this page the term is used the way the environmetalists use it, and that is so narrow and incomplete. Please put some emphasis on the meaning of the term itself, not just the way some enviromentalists with political agendas use it. Precise use of terms is important. --[[User:Pepsi-Cola|Pepsi-Cola]] 13:56, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:That is my plan. In fact, I would like to use this page only to explain how an actual [[greenhouse]] works (primarily by trapping warm air). I would like to use another page, such as [[Atmosphere]], to explain how and why the average temperature of the earth's surface is fit for human life (most of the time, in most places). 

:I don't like the use of the metaphor of a ''greenhouse'' in the "global warming" debate. It starts with a misconception, and there are too many misconceptions already in the [[global warming controversy]]. 

:Science should dispel confusion, no matter how much politics creates it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:03, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== "Disproving global warming" source is a complete joke  ==

PortlyMort, did you read the source from the front page? I've looked into it, and the source is complete junk. I don't think "it was on the front page" is a great defence, especially since [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=261307 you yourself] have questioned the validity of front page sources. Please defend the source better or I will remove it again. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:50, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

The comments here date back to 2007 and the joke is on the other side now.  The earth has cooled for 15 years and Al Gore always makes his case in foreign nations when and where there are ice storms.  It's funny. What is not funny is the push of other nations to tax trillions of dollars.  There is excellent work at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, to provide a scientific basis rather than false scare tactics of Al Gore, et.al.  [http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy2011/index.html] and http://www.drroyspencer.com/ Hope this helps you find joy in creation. Truly, [[User:RushEcho|RushEcho]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

==Merged from Runaway greenhouse effect==
Wow, yet another bizarre article that asserts nothing more than that its topic does not exist! [[User:Human|Human]] 18:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I say merge it and make it a subcategory within [[Greenhouse gas]]. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 17:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

"a runaway greenhouse effect has been predicted by some climate scientists" -- Which scientists, exactly, are predicting a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth?  This part would really do with some references to back it up.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 00:30, 2 March 2008 (EST)

The problem with the article is that "runaway greenhouse effect" seems to have a different meaning here than it does elsewhere.  As far as I've seen, when scientists use the term, they refer pretty specifically to what happened on Venus:  warming, positive feedback, little or no negative feedback, and onward in an upward spiral until the planet surface looks like the seventh plane of H-E-double hockeysticks.  And as far as I've seen, even the most diehard AGW believer doesn't think that's going to happen.  We're just too far away from the sun.  However, this article appears to equate that term with AGW, otherwise known as the "enhanced greenhouse effect.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)