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 (21888)	6/6/2008 5:43:01 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Clearly lying neolib has the inductive reasoning ability of a 3 year old. 10W/m^2 yields 30K in a year. thus 30 yields 90K a year. or 1 W/m^2 give 3K per year or 3K/8760hr = .0003K degree per hour. It also means the a cooling rate of 1K degree per hour defines a radiant flux rate of 2920 W/m^2. Desert levels of humidity have observed cooling rates exceeding 10 degrees per hour that is a radiative flux of 10 * 2920 = 29200 W/m^2 Heat loss per year can be used to think about heat loss per hour. to those who are not idiots. To any who have actually created and truly understood real world objects, pontification about a .0003 degree per hour when clear measurements show regular real effects exceeding ten degree per hour, is the pontification of fools and liars. An analysis of the -57F vertical cone for the case of ground air at 50F and the standard atmosphere temperature profile will show 30W/m^2 is imagination. H20 can vary cooling rates per hour that reflect radiation flux that is 33333 times greater than the supposed CO2 rate. Yet h20 is only rated at 75W/m^2 All the above simply shows that the definitions are meaningless for application to or description of what is really driving temperature short term and climate the integration of short term.