Talk:Anti-greenhouse effect

"anti-GHE" seems to be something of a neologism

"anti-GHE" seems to be something of a neologism. And the article needs better refs. The only ref it does have states quite clearly Titan is the only world in the solar system that has an anti-greenhouse effect which contradicts the article itself. William M. Connolley 09:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Well, The Titan Article was written on Nov 03, 2005. The discovery of the Pluto effect was published on January 3, 2006, But i have changed the links anyway to nasa and space.com websites. Fosnez 06:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, having looked, the Titan example makes sense. But the Pluto one doesn't, though I've done my best to fit it in. It makes no sense because (a) the mechanism is totally different to titan and (b) as far as i can see, its just the same thing as happens on Earth. Except that no-one would call it that. William M. Connolley 22:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism?

GN rm'd neologism on the grounds that it was misspelled and unnecessary and misleading characterization. Misspelled I admit; I've fixed that. Misleading is wrong: it appears to date to Nov 2005, and if that isn't neo I don't know what is. Unnecessary? that is arguable I suppose; I think its a good idea to make clear that this term isn't widely used or known. Judging by the examples presented, it doesn't even have a clear meaning. William M. Connolley 16:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

"Greenhouse effect" is a neologism itself, too. But characterizing it as such doesn't help to understand it. Gene Nygaard 03:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Searches with Google Ngram show that "Antigreenhouse effect" dates at least to the 1970s (in reference to dust storms on Mars); a quick search of the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System confirms this and also shows the term first appeared in the 1960s. So: not a neologism at this point. Peter Erwin (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thus keeping the surface approximately 10°C (20°F) cooler than would otherwise be expected

10 degrees Celsius = 50 degrees Fahrenheit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.220.10 (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not when its a difference William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can awkward wording in opening sentence be simplified?

I'm having a bit of trouble coming to grips with the phrasing "anti-greenhouse effect ...used to describe two different effects that describe a cooling effect..." Surely there must be a simpler way of stating it? Currently I'm reading it simplistically reduced to 'an effect that describes effects that describe an effect'?!? Say wha..?? KnowBuddy (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't it just be called a "bluehouse effect" or something. or maybe even "icehouse effect" seeing as greenhouse refers to an actual thing. also, from what i understand, the effects definition seems to be "a cooling effect brought on by a change in atmospheric composition." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aladdin125 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SO2 as antigreenhouse gas?

I've heard that SO2 in higher atmosphere causes anti-greenhouse effect. Is that true? --B. Srinivasa Sasidhar 21:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect you're thinking of sulphate aerosols, which can cause cooling. That's somewhat different though William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto case - thermal inertia effect ≠ "anti-greenhouse"

The literature involving Mark Gurwell [1] seems to say that Pluto's surface is colder than Charon's. Fair enough. However, the pop science article quoted in the Anti-greenhouse effect does not really explain why.

What it says is that ice on the surface of Pluto sublimates, which takes some energy and therefore cools the planet. Very well, but that effect is transient and likely cyclical: as Pluto gets closer to the Sun ice sublimates which cools it compared to Charon that has no atmosphere, but when Pluto gets farther from the Sun ice should condensate, hence making it hotter than Charon.^{[citation needed]} (Notice that Pluto has a 248 year revolution period, so it is very possible that we only have data on the "getting closer to the Sun" phase.) An "anti-greenhouse effect" would be if haze of sublimated ice or other components of the atmosphere had a higher transmittance of thermal than solar radiation. Finally, a variable ice surface may change Pluto's albedo.

As far as I can tell all those effects are not really well separated in the scientific articles (much less in the pop-sci pieces). I propose (and will boldly implement) that the article be focused on the reverse of greenhouse effect, for which there is (as current sources go) no proof that it happens in Pluto's atmosphere. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Newton Foote

Eunice Newton Foote's research finding of radiation absorption was apparently described in a book by Ralph Lorenz as effectively an "antigreenhouse effect" because it involves primarily solar radiation absorption rather than absorption and re-radiation of terrestrial longwave ('thermal') infrared radiation. Maybe relevant to this article? . . dave souza, talk 22:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing page for class and new references for Wikipedia article

Hello anti-greenhouse effect community! I am a graduate student in atmospheric science taking a planetary atmospheres class where our final project entails improving or creating a Wikipedia article relevant to the course. This is a heads up that I will be making edits to this article. Here is a list of references that I plan to add to this article:

Courtin, R.; McKay, C. P.; Pollack, J. (May 1992). "L'effet de serre dans le système solaire". La Recherche. 23 (243): 542–9. Bibcode:1992Rech...23..542C.
Covey, C.; Haberle, R. M.; McKay, C. P.; Titov, D. V. (2013), "The Greenhouse Effect and Climate Feedbacks" (PDF), Comparative Climatology of Terrestrial Planets, University of Arizona Press, doi:10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816530595-ch007, ISBN 978-0-8165-3059-5, retrieved 2022-05-25
Catling, David C. (2017). Atmospheric Evolution on Inhabited and Lifeless Worlds. James F. Kasting. West Nyack: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-02055-8. OCLC 982451455.
Roberts, J. D. (26 November 1971). "Late Precambrian Glaciation: an Anti-Greenhouse Effect?". Nature. 234 (5326): 216–217. doi:10.1038/234216a0. ISSN 0028-0836.
Kump, Lee R. (2010). The earth system. James F. Kasting, Robert G. Crane (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-321-59779-3. OCLC 268789401.

It seems that "anti-greenhouse effect" or "anti-greenhouse" has different definitions and/or uses in different communities, and that is why I have included the Roberts reference. Let me know if you have any thoughts on these sources. Carleydf (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of removing the Stratospheric sulfur aerosols Wikipedia article link in the Earth section. The sulfur aerosols don't absorb solar energy, but rather reflect it. I think this is just outside the definition used previously, where a layer has to absorb in the solar to heat the layer. Carleydf (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Planetary Atmospheres

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 10 June 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carleydf (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Trentag0n.

— Assignment last updated by Trentag0n (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]