The Environmentalist Thread Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (22177)	7/13/2008 8:10:01 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) of 36917

It is possible you do not have the intellectual tools or desire to know the real truth. I suppose you have already read this rebuttal to Gerlich's and Tscheuschner's paper before you cam up with that comment. Yes? V. CONCLUSION Gerlich and Tscheuschner1 state, among more extravagant claims, that “Unfortunately, there is no source in the literature, where the greenhouse effect is introduced in harmony with the scientific standards of theoretical physics.” The above analysis I believe completely establishes, within perfectly simple and appropriate theoretical physics constructs, the main points. Namely that assuming “the atmosphere is transparent for visible light but opaque for infrared radiation” leads to “a warming of the Earth’s surface” relative to firm limits established by basic physical principles of energy conservation, for the case of an atmosphere transparent to both visible and infrared. Loads more can be found here.. arxiv.org It also has got some neat math in it. I checked it over as best I can, didn't see anywhere were the author has dropped a stitch, sneaked away or a lost radiation coefficient. etc . Do you??

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next