Anonymous asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 5 months ago

According to Solar Wind, "...the greenhouse theory is a theory that has been debunked," is this supported by ANY atmospheric scientist?

Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, etc., all believe in the greenhouse theory, so who has "debunked" it?


The faked Einstein photo is a good example of the ethics of the deniers in here. There are no legitimate scientists that reject the greenhouse effect, so they use a photoshopped image of the most famous scientist ever. The sad thing is that many in the denial crowd are so gullible that they may believe it is a real photo or that Einstein actually rejected the greenhouse effect.

Update 2:

Almost certainly the same troll that posted the faked Einstein photo is now falsely claiming that I am paid for posting here.  That is not only not true, the opposite is largely true--minutes I spend posting here are ones that I don't charge on my meteorological consulting job. So the more time I spend on here, the less money I make!

Update 3:

Anonymous (i.e. Clown), I am not calling out Solar Wind, he made a statement and I want to know where I can read where it's been "debunked". This is a legitimate question--unlike your answer, which is simply a rant.

Update 4:

Pretty funny, catwhisperer07, since you have nothing to back that up and I think most people believe you're a sock puppet account of Solar Wind's anyway, along with Chester.

Update 5:

Thanks Koshka!

5 Answers

  • 5 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    SolarWind's answer (which seems, a few hours later, to have disappered) is pure and utter drivel spouted by someone who clearly doesn't understand thermodynamics.

    102 W/m^2 is reflected. 239 W/m^2 is radiated by the Earth into space. Add them together and you get 341 W/m^2 which matches the 341 W/m^2 incoming solar radiation. In other words, we have conservation of energy. Correct physics!

    Why are the surface radiation (374) and downwelling (333) figures so high? Because the Earth doesn't cool to absolute zero overnight at which point it would stop radiating heat. These figures are higher than the absorbed 161 W/m^2 figure because the Earth has an average temperature of about 288K.

    There's no violation of thermodynamics. SolarWind has forgotten that the graph he showed is for a planet at 288 K and not 0 K.

    If I have a filled pool that leaks 1 litre per second, and I top it up at 1 litre per second, that doesn't mean I can't also have a fountain that pumps 10 litres per second up in the air to fall back into the pool! What SolarWind is arguing is that my fountain violates physics because it can only match the 1 litre per second rate I'm topping it up.

  • Koshka
    Lv 5
    5 months ago

    Here is Solar Wind's screenshot of the screenshot answer that someone removed. He just asked about why his answer was removed. I found nothing in it that violated the community guidelines. I hope he's happy now.

    Attachment image
  • 5 months ago

    I have witnessed a few of your debates with Solar and he kicked your @ss every time.

  • Vela
    Lv 6
    5 months ago

    No.  And, when we could write comments I told that foolish right winger many times that it's not the sun and he always ignored me. 

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    5 months ago

    Solar Wind is one picnic short of a picnic, telling that surviving deniers are rabid nutters waffling about peak oil or ice cream, they're not worth engaging with 

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.