Are you aware of the situation on Venus?
The planet is about half as far from the sun, so it will receive 4 times the energy per square meter (although this may be offset somewhat by the planet's high albedo).
I'd say those figures imply that any greenhouse gas effect is pretty negligible.
Yes, David and agreed. I remember reading Carl Sagan in 1973. I think it was Cosmic Connection, in which he cited that carbon dioxide had rendered Venus a hell of sorts. 900 degrees Fahrenheit, otherwise it would be another Earth! I remember thinking then that the inverse-square law applied. Now we know that Venus model to be essentially anachronistic politics, and not real science.
The problem I have with Sagan is, that we did not hold the evidence back then, which we do now regarding AGW. How was Sagan so sure that AGW was to blame? And we now know decades later that Sagan was not 100% vested into telling the truth on some key matters of public interest. The evidence was far from conclusive in 1971, when he wrote the book. This hints at a play called a Verdrängung Mechanism - a type of Omega Hypothesis, which I saw at play in the maturation of AGW. They declared the answer back in the 60's. The problem is, that the evidence back then was not that good - and now we use induction to provide more evidence,
ex ante - and
ex ante induction, especially inductive
ex ante modus absens is problematic. Such 'knowledge' can become an Omega Hypothesis (a hypothesis which has become more important to protect, than the integrity of science itself). To wit:
Verdrängung Mechanism – the level of control and idea displacement achieved through skillful employment of the duality between pluralistic ignorance and the Lindy Effect. The longer a control-minded group can sustain an Omega Hypothesis perception by means of the tactics and power protocols of proactive pluralistic ignorance, the greater future acceptability and lifespan that idea will possess. As well, the harder it will to be dethrone as an accepted norm or perception as a ‘proved’ null hypothesis.
The above is exactly what happened. This does bother me. That being said however, I do have a company in the works which promotes negative carbon-contribution energy. Despite my reservations about the form of inference, I still believe the issue to be of grave concern.
But if in the end, I find that I have wasted millions of dollars in useless engineering, recovery, energy and construction projects - when climate change is not stemming primarily from AGW - then I am gonna be seeking censure/prison for its promoters.
Science must always operate inside the public trust. I don't want to intimidate scientists who are just doing their job - but neither should they intimidate and act as lords of the public.
(Your posts are great btw... I read most all of them...
)