Given that you think a greenhouse is heated by modulated convection, how the hell are you going to understand anything else.
He didn't say that, you are putting words in his mouth. You did not get the difference.
Really? Well, in his own words:
So, real greenhouses work mainly by modulating convection while the 'greenhouse effect' works by modulating radiation.
What is confusing about that summary? It is very accurate.
Now, if you think he is being a knave by not addressing the issue of HEATING in a greenhouse, but is instead conflating COOLING in a greenhouse, well, what do you think I should think of a person who is being intentionally dishonest instead of just ignorant? I'll grant you that the junk science guy MIGHT be being intentionally dishonest by conflating temperature REGULATION in a greenhouse with HEATING. If so he is knave and not fool. I suspect fool frankly.
The point remains, the mechanism and equations governing heating in a greenhouse and in the earth's atmosphere are essentially the same, and they are radiation based, not convection based. The preferred mechanism for COOLING in a greenhouse is typically convection based, but that is totally irrelevant to the metaphor of "greenhouse" used to refer to AGW. The preferred method for cooling the earth's climate has not been figured out, but it will most definitely NOT be convection to space. The junkscience guy is just that, junk science. And Watson is to dense to figure any of it out. |
