SI
SI
discoversearch

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: maceng2 who wrote (22189)7/14/2008 10:21:59 AM
From: Thomas A Watson  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36917
 
Well consider obvious conclusion from the supposed truth of item 4. Clearly this proves that a gas that is not IR transparent to have zero mechanical insulating properties.

It also proves the a molecule like h20 will not convect any heat.

The statements demonstrate that those who are good at writing equations are often complete idiots about what the equations mean.

Once again conduction and convection are ignored and we throw out the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
And my cool outline is also html linked to the topic. The pages below are the PDF pages and html located info.
toms.homeip.net

The fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effectsPage 35

* Problem definition Page 35
* Scientific error versus scientific fraud Page 35
* Different versions of the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture Page 38
o Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Möller (1973)Page 38
o Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Meyer's encyclopedia (1974) Page 38
o Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Schönwiese (1987)Page 38
o Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Stichel (1995) Page 39
o Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Anonymous 1 (1995)Page 39
o Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Anonymous 2 (1995)Page 40
o Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Anonymous 3 (1995)Page 40
o Atmospheric greenhouse effect after German Meteorological Society (1995)Page 40
o Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Graßl (1996)Page 41
o Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Ahrens (2001) Page 41
o Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Astronomy (2001)Page 42
o Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Encyclopaedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics (2001) Page 42
o Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Encyclopaedia Britannica Online (2007) Page 43
o Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Rahmstorf (2007)Page 43
o Conclusion Page 44
* The conclusion of the US Department of Energy Page 44
* Absorption/Emission is not Reflection Page 45
o An inconvenient popularization of physics Page 45
o Reflection Page 47
o Absorption and Emission Page 48
o Re-emissionPage 48
o Two approaches of Radiative TransferPage 49
* The hypotheses of Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius Page 51
o The traditional works Page 51
o Modern works of climatology Page 57
* The assumption of radiative balance Page 58
o Introduction Page 58
o A note on ``radiation balance'' diagrams Page 58
o The case of purely radiative balance Page 60
o The average temperature of a radiation-exposed globe Page 62
o Non-existence of the natural greenhouse effect Page 64
o A numerical example Page 65
o Non-existence of a global temperature Page 66
o The rotating globe Page 67
o The obliquely rotating globe Page 68
o The radiating bulk Page 69
o The comprehensive work of Schack Page 70
* Thermal conductivity versus radiative transfer Page 72
o The heat equation Page 72
o Heat transfer across and near interfaces Page 74
o In the kitchen: Physics-obsessed housewife versus IPCC Page 74
* The laws of thermodynamics Page 75
o Introduction Page 75
o Diagrams Page 76
o A paradox Page 77
o Possible resolution of the paradox Page 78