Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (18903)	12/26/2007 3:18:14 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36921

The average surface temperature of the Earth (which is another blackbody) is 287 Kelvins (14°C). This works out to an energy output of 385 watts per square meter, while we have calculated solar energy input as 353 watts per square meter (which corresponds to a surface temperature of about 281 Kelvins, or 8°C). Given the closeness of the numbers (±32 watts < 10%), the Earth radiates little or no more energy than it receives from the Sun. In other words, there is no significant energy received at the Earth's surface from any interior source. (Contrast this with Jupiter, which radiates about 10 times the energy it receives from the Sun.)

To: neolib who wrote (18903)	12/26/2007 3:18:54 PM
From: HPilot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Yes, as astonishing as that seem, the earth radiates out to space MORE energy than it receives from all the sunlight falling on it. Since you are ignorant of this, I'd use that as a kind of metric to renormalize any other nonsense statements you make regarding global warming. Only if you count the reflection of the clouds without their greenhouse effect, thus one of the fallicies of the GW theory. You are the ignorant one for buying into the false science.