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 (19353)	1/2/2008 12:55:32 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 36921

Well with no gas there is no sound transmission, so it cannot here you. Oh you say it is written, no matter as no air means brain death so it cannot read what you have written. Consider if convection cannot heat a greenhouse then it logically follows that building a greenhouse stops the gulf stream that heats all of Europe. Duh idiot of the thread sayes convention cannot heat a greenhouse. All winds and all currents the move the trillions of btu of heat energy absorbed in the tropics and convected toward the polar regions can be ignored.

To: HPilot who wrote (19353)	1/2/2008 6:24:48 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Sooo?? What is the temperature without any gas, no molecules to bounce around? You have really proved your genius. It can be neglected in the heat calculations. I'm claiming something on the order of 1% or so of the incoming heat energy ends up in the greenhouse air. So you can neglect it from an energy balance perspective. Your other calculations are not going to be accurate to 1%, so why bother. Why bother even more so if it leads you to draw foolish parallels?