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: Thomas A Watson who wrote (21883)	6/6/2008 4:04:24 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Forget your claims about me being a liar, just clarify your measurement stupidity for us. What the hell do you think you are measuring when your $10 brain points your $60 IR meter at the clear sky? BTW, the whole reason I asked you about your Africa plot was because you were making the same stupid mistake there. I couldn't get you to actually explain what you saw as a problem, but I knew your confusion. Just because N. Africa has a net outflow of heat does not say squat about 30W/m2 of GHG over it. Fortunately, you have now displayed your ignorance by showing that you have not a clue about energy and temperature. Your $60 tool is not measuring temperature, but you are too much a fool to know that. It is measuring energy flux, and using an algorithm to compute temperature assuming the sum of flux it is seeing is coming from a single surface with known emissivity, and you are using the correct emissivity. The fact that you are pointing it at an optically transparent medium (clear sky) with IR emissions from feet to space all from varying sources and then dumbly reading the resulting number is your problem. Of course, you are units challenged as I recall, so why be concerned with energy vs temperature, they are all the same anyway? Egads you are an idiot.