/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7485777
>So why don't you just use google?
good 1 sherlock, but there arent any

>I'd bet that even if you assume all the energy from all man-made transmissions were trapped in the atmosphere, the forcing from all of it would be several orders of magnitude lower than the forcing from emissions.
LOL you have NO CLUE, son, take a hike.
you think breathing co2 on a potato will cook it faster than putting it in the microwave? this is the kind of intellect on here?
> I'd bet...
Am I supposed to take your wild assumptions serious? you are way off base by the way. CO^2 forcing? 1st off, you use the word incorrectly and don't mention the variable, so you clearly have no clue what you're talking about if you think radiative forcing from microwaves aren't way higher than your forcing from all greenhouse gases, especially in the stratosphere.and you would have to add up all the radiative heat left over from all the nuclear explosions(very small[less than 0.7 of a degree rise over100 years] and i don't want to get the math wrong, so i didn't include it)
pic related- chart welded showing all troposphere & stratospheric forcings and also all the aerosals affected by microwaves along with black carbon and other gases, the same way they added all greenhouse gases together, then on top of that you would also include and surplus from the greenhouse gases affected by electromagnetic waves with a wavelength between 1.03m and .96mm, so, nope greenhouse forcing are much less as a matter of fact.