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 (19984)	2/1/2008 3:23:08 PM
From: HPilot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36918

Maurice, I'm trying to straighten out a guy who thinks that somehow moving a mass through a distance equals some specific amount of work. It does not. Thats only because you read between my lines and come up with stuff I didn't say. Moving an object with a force is work. You keep thinking it must be in specific terms using gravatational and that weight is not mass. Weight and mass are equal on earth. When moving an object x distance with y weight force on the earth, using the same work in space or the moon will result in moving the object a further distance because the object is lighter in weight, but the same mass, so a gravitational constant is used for Joules and Watts. But that does not mean that it is not work when ft-lbs are used instead.

To: neolib who wrote (19984)	2/1/2008 4:55:27 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36918

yes all noelib can babble about is gibberish about units. Still no explantion on how CO2 is driving climate change. I created an image to illustrate the CO2 hoax. It seems in a different form the idea of that image is used with detailed straightfoward science explanation on why CO2 is not driving climate change. A copy of the PDF Carbon Heat Trapping: Merely A Bit Player in Global Warming1 Richard J. Petschauer, Senior Member IEEE junkscience.com bulk.ath.cx A text version. bulk.ath.cx My image The PDF Image.

To: neolib who wrote (19984)	2/2/2008 11:18:02 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 36918

For neolib AKA ear2earfeces, until such time as whatever dementia afflicts you preventing you from comprehending the simple clear expressions of science at sites like junkscience.com is cured, only delusions make you believe you can help any other understand anything. Understanding Heat Trapping and how it is a misnomer. From a superb pdf at junkscience.com Understanding Heat Trapping It is well known that certain gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapor, methane, and others in the atmosphere absorb radiant infrared heat that is leaving the Earth's surface, warm the air, and re-radiate heat in all directions, including back to Earth. Infrared energy is an electromagnetic wave like visible light and radio waves, but of different frequencies or wavelengths. (This heat transfer process is incorrectly called trapping, but at times we will use that term here because it is referred to so often in the media). However, it is not generally known that this heat absorption occurs only at certain wavelengths. These are the ones that have frequencies that resonate at certain values that relate to those of a particular molecule's structure. It is similar to a radio receiver picking up only signals that correspond to the frequency to which its tuner is adjusted. Some of these different gases have several resonant wavelengths and some of these overlap among them. This is the case for water vapor and CO2. Since there are many more water vapor molecules in the air than CO2, the ones for CO2 that do not overlap, or only partially overlap water vapor, are of interest. Note: The term greenhouse gas is actually a misnomer. In real greenhouses the ceiling blocks the rising warm air from escaping. With little temperature differences, radiant heat transfer is very low. So phrases such as heat trapping greenhouse gases (two flawed concepts in only four words) are causing great concern and misleading the uninformed public. Hopefully, this paper will help to correct this situation.