What's new
Frozen In Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What If: Impact Of Climate Change Hoax?


Basically, we all know climate change is real, but let us say the ROB Oily Boi waves his hand and vaporises the Greenhouse Effect.

Now all other fields have to realistically explain the results of the GE without using it and this likely means constants and equations get modified to be consistent with the current data.

My question is to people like @Vorpal as an hilarious intellectual exercise: What would have to be changed, what things would brake as a result of it and what would the impacts be? Because I’m seriously legit curious on what is the actual extent of the deniers stupidity.


Well-known member
A significant chunk of said deniers are the Evangelist type.

There is no science or pseudoscience belief in their climate change denial or "climate denial" perse to be honest.

Just a firm and staunch belief that everything is gods will so humans have no input or that yes human can and do effect the enviroment but JESUS! will save us no matter what.


Only the the exceptionally uninformed try to deny the existence of the greenhouse effect itself. I don't think most of them do that at all, though people that does don't seem to be that uncommon either. The basics of the greenhouse effect have been understood for nearly two hundred years now, if Fourier's mostly qualitative description counts.

Anyway, turning off the greenhouse effect would cool global mean temperatures by a lot, down to its effective blackblody temperature, which one can estimate by Stefan–Boltzmann to be 254K = -19°C. Of course, such a thing would also drastically raise Earth's bond albedo from about 0.306 as the Earth becomes a snowball, so the temperature would ultimately fall much, much lower than that. To fix this, extreme changes in the Earth's energy budget, e.g. higher solar output (maybe some extreme geothermal heat or whatever if we're pulling a ROB anyway).

Furthermore, without the greenhouse effect, the atmospheric lapse rate would be completely messed up, with (at least) greatly inhibited convection and ultimately a more uniform tropospheric temperature. I'm not at all sure what that would do to weather and climate, other than render it completely unrecognisable, even if mean surface temperature stays the same by some means.

A necessary ingredient for the greenhouse effect is appropriate absorption spectrum of atmospheric molecules, specifically that the excited modes that change the electric dipole have frequencies in the infrared. And one can't change that without affecting basic chemistry of those elements, so a pasted-on ROB exception would be revealed for the magic that it is.

The most conceptually straightforward way to counter CO₂ contribution specifically (which is small compared to total greenhouse effect) may be to introduce another gas for an anti-greenhouse effect, perhaps in the stratosphere, i.e. something absorptive in the visible and transparent in the infrared. Though the actual climate is complicated and has many various feedback loops that I'm sure a ROB could manage to do so basically undetectably from us for a long time, with exactly what's happening to counter it staying a long-term puzzle.


Active member
Most of the heat-storage capacity of the Earth's atmosphere is due to water vapor. And the atmosphere is of course in contact with the land and the ocean.
I recall seeing articles that claimed that a large proportion of the expected "warming" is actually being absorbed by the ocean.

EDIT: to clarify: they would find someplace that the heat was going. No need to change physical constants or anything so drastic.
Last edited:
Top Bottom