Wrong, I acknowledged that we have an atmosphere. Not that there is a greenhouse effect.
I asked why is the Earth hotter than the moon and you responded "We have an atmosphere of a certain density."
With that answer, you acknowledged the atmosphere as the reason the Earth is warmer than it otherwise would be. "Greenhouse effect" is just a name. Call it the "Boilermaker03 atmospheric radiative effect" if you want to, the name doesn't matter.
Venus is super hot right? Supposedly because of a runaway greenhouse effect. But how that can be the case when only 20% of sunlight penetrates the atmosphere and less than 10% of sunlight even reaches the surface. Not only that, it takes 56 days for Venus to rotate. 56 days of no light and the surface only cools by ~20 degrees.
This is LITERALLY evidence for the greenhouse effect. If you're correct that only 10% of sunlight makes it to Venus' surface and yet it's as hot as it is (ie, hotter than the sun can make it on it's own), there must necessarily be a mechanism that prevents that energy from escaping the system as quickly as it otherwise might, raising the overall temperature of the system.
Greenhouse gasses don't have to only exist at the surface. This super critical fluid at the surface must, necessarily, radiate heat into the atmosphere above it, where the CO2 is, right?
That taken into account Mars surface temp should be -56 C. However it's actually -62 C. So it's COLDER than you'd expect from just a black body.
Mars is -28 C. Try again.
Actually, we don't know what the average temp would be with no atmosphere on the Earth because the Earth rotates. The moon doesn't and that's why the dark side is so cold.
You claim to be this bastion of scientific understanding but you think the moon doesn't rotate?
I'll leave this to
@mdthornb, now, as he brings up a good point. You acknowledge that the atmosphere can radiate energy back towards the surface. Where does that radiation go?
Edit: Regarding the study you posted: I won't pretend to understand everything it says, I'm no expert, but I know you're not either (see above about the supposedly non-rotating moon), so you're just taking their word for it that they're right and that their study was conducted properly, etc. As usual, you've chosen a scientific outlier to try to prove your point. The fact that they are outliers, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong; but, the fact that you can find a few scientists who believe what you believe doesn't necessarily mean that they or you are right, either. For every study you post that supports your position, I could post 5 (or whatever, it's arbitrary) that refute it.
Aside from that, those scientists don't seem to be particularly reputable (publishing under pseudonyms and, in the case of Nikolov, listing his PhD incorrectly on his CV), and their work has been widely discredited.
Ned Nikolov Credentials Ph.D. Forest Ecology, Colorado State University (1997). Nikolov lists his PhD as in “Ecological Modeling” on his CV. [1], [2] M.S. Forestry, Higher Institute of Forestry, Bulgaria (1986). [2] B.S. Forestry, Higher Institute of Forestry, Bulgaria (1985). [2] Background...
www.desmog.com
But I guess that's just more evidence of the conspiracy perpetuated by the government so they can destroy the American economy in the name of climate change, because.....reasons.....