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 (18961)	12/26/2007 9:54:10 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 36921

Please buy one; she is my boss. harvestbountygreenhouses.com

To: HPilot who wrote (18961)	12/26/2007 10:44:12 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36921

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.

To: HPilot who wrote (18961)	12/27/2007 2:36:13 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 36921

People do misunderstand, so I'm not sure it's deliberate, but Neo does make a habit of misunderstanding or misinterpreting: <He didn't say that, you are putting words in his mouth. > Even when one tries to explain what was meant, Neo insists that Neo's wrong interpretation is the correct meaning, which is weird because it is pretty obvious that the person doing the writing is the one who knows what was meant. I think it's to do with trying to attribute motive and apply a prejudiced stereotype to individuals. Like assuming that "Oh, you are a negro, therefore you think such and such and behave like such and such". Neo does see the individuals, just "Oh, they are opposing me, therefore they think the prejudiced and stereotyped idea I have of such people and the all fit in one box". I think I have my old text book on thermodynamics and I did plenty of it at university. I am not going to get it out to see if it will help with the climate discussions because it won't. It's about temperature, heat, work, enthalpy, entropy and how to calculate all that stuff. It doesn't say anything about plate tectonics [which strips carbon from the ecosphere]. Nothing about Suicidal Gaia. It doesn't enable good guesses at cloud formation as temperatures, insolation, plant cover, snow cover change. I suppose I have a pretty good intuitive understanding of such processes which is how come I could come up with the ideas 20 years ago which are now introduced as though they are novel and "scientific". Such as how to handle CO2 as a liquid to the bottom of the ocean [that has been dismissed as environmental pollution of course]. Such as "Omigosh, it looks as though cloud formation could have a major impact on our models." Now that I think of it, there are plenty of thermodynamic and physics processes involved in collecting CO2 from exhausts, cooling and compressing it to a liquid and even knowing that it could be kept as a liquid below about 400 metres of ocean. Neo is just repeating climate doomsters with a patina of scientific jargon but without much understanding that I can see. Most people don't even have the patina. They just identify with those saying it's doom and gloom and think Climate Change aka Global Warming aka Greenhouse Effect is something to do with the ozone layer and not recycling plastic bags which stay in the ground for millennia and heat it up. Mqurice