Jeff, how sure are you that GW is nonsense? Are you pretty sure?
Is there a 10% chance it's real? 5%? 1%? one in a million?? At what point do the odds become justification for polluting out planet more? On 4/24/07, Paul Lowrance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeff Fink wrote: > Mercury is too close to the sun Indeed, and if the sun is radiating X% more radiation then Mercury should be hotter. Are you suggesting Mercury is always in front or behind the Sun so we can't measuring it's blackbody radiation??? I'm curious where you get such information, or are you just thinking out loud? > the other planets are cloud shrouded, That doesn't matter. Planets are not transparent to blackbody radiation. If the planet receives more radiation from the Sun then they'll heat up and radiate that much more. > and everything else is likely too small to get a good reading. I doubt that given such blackbody radiation is easily focused and measurable. > But, you are right. We should see the same effect of elevated > temps on the moon if solar activity is increasing. Indeed, and it seems likely given the significance and attention global warming is drawing that the few global warming skeptic climate scientists would use such Moon temperature data as further evidence, but I don't see mention of any such data in articles. Regards, Paul Lowrance
