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: HPilot who wrote (18906)	12/26/2007 3:44:32 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

This issue is not control or regulation, it is what the heating mechanism is. In AGW we are not trying to control or regulate the earths atmosphere. We are doing the equivalent of cladding the earth in glass. That is why the stupid junkscience idiot got himself confused. When he thinks greenhouse he things about regulating temps, not about the mechanism which causes warming. Two completely different animals. As I pointed out, convection is used in greenhouses to regulate temps (downward). In much the same way that additional heat from a fire source is used to regulate the temps upward as well. But the discussion about greenhouse effects has nothing more to do with fans & convection or boilers adding heat. It has to do with the mechanism of solar radiation adding heat. Guess what, the earth and greenhouses open the same radiation equations. Gee, now who could have expected that, given the fools claim that the greenhouse metaphor was a bad one? Please note that the junkscience link provided a link to another source which "explained" greehouses while trying to bash (somewhat) the radiation approach (which was simply confusion over the relative heat capacity of the surface vs atmosphere for greenhouses vs. the earth LOL!) However, it lamely noted that in fact, when you look at a full 24 hour cycle, it is radiation. Duh!