What the hell are you talking about psikeyhackr?
What was so off putting about that article and its attempt at a another detailed (yet keeping it simple) explanation of the mechanism of GHGs, sun and the physics of Earth’s greenhouse effect. Especially when we got so many clowns out there pretending to prove that atmospheric CO2 content is meaningless - why not another attempt at explaining it?
Oh, and pray tell what is this “religion of science?”
At the very beginning the article says this:
there certainly remains a problem in communicating the science to the public.
But later it has this:
The energy flowing from the sun is intercepted by the earth with energy density described by the ‘solar constant‘ (S0=1366W/m2), and the amount of energy intercepted is the product between this flux density and the earth’s disc (minus the reflected light due to the planet’s albedo: A ~0.3). The average heat loss is given by the product of earth’s surface and its black body radiation:
S0/4 (1-A) = σT4,
where σ=5.67 x 10-8W/(m2 K4) is the Stefan-Boltzman constant. This gives a value of 255K, known as the emission temperature.
Figure 3 shows a comparison between observed surface temperature and calculated emission temperature for the planets in the solar system, based on the balance between energy from the sun and heat loss due to black body emission. In these simple calculations, the greenhouse effect is neglected, and the black body radiation can be derived from Planck’s law. The calculations agree quite well with the observations for most of the objects in our solar system, except for Venus which is known to harbour a strong GHE and has a hotter surface than Mercury despite being about twice as far away from the sun.
Now do you really expect that to get anything across to the public? No, the vast majority of the public won’t even look at articles like this.
So the scientists can lament being ineffective while saying things insucha way as to make themselves ineffective.