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 (22224)	7/16/2008 6:54:26 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

post hiding behind an anonymous handle The internet is a public place. It's rare that I see someone walking down the street with their name and social security number tattooed on their forehead, but it takes all sorts to make the world turn I guess. I only post under this one handle on most threads. I do not use multiple identities or anything. My name and address are no big secret but I don't display them that is all there is to it. I know you as watson, my name is pearly. That is all the information needed. The views stated are just my reflection of the science that seems to be accepted at the moment. I am no seething climate change left wing socialist, and am open minded on the role of CO2. I don't discount it though, even though it's levels are only ppm. The sun spot count hasn't risen yet, and there is a statistical chance it won't, but only a slight one. Message 24748656 With energy price trends as they are, I have bought a coal stove and bought a couple of tons of coal too. As I don't live in a smoke free zone, it's the smokey type of coal. Perhaps some of my teenage daughters environmentally concerned friends (Having dutifully watched Al Gores film etc at school) may pass on some criticism of my anti environment practices. I will argue my corner well though, hopefully without tearing them up too much. Outside of the equations stated, when you drill down to the detailed physics of climate on this planet, I will readily admit it's still all full of guesswork and some discovery tomorrow might just throw the whole latest analysis up in the air. The scientists and politicians that allocate funding for this or that could easily be wrong footed with developments. There are many variables and I have mentioned of man made sources that cool the atmosphere as well as heat it. I do not have some silly "bee in my bonnet" that is only concerned about CO2. Particulates, other effluent gases, they can all play some sort of role in the climate. The Earths albedo for example (according to some accounts) has swung widely over the last 10 years. It could be just natural causes too that changed things. The climate and climate change implications are worth lots of study though imho.

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (22224)	7/17/2008 3:01:51 PM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 36917

o in any fundamental work of radiation theory; Looks like your wrong on that one... amazon.com (thanks to information from the site quoted next post)

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (22224)	7/17/2008 3:08:22 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Proof of the Greenhouse effect:- Note1:- (You will need at least TWO of your sleepless nights again) (a) Walk outside of your house in the middle of the night with no cloud cover. A clear night. Note temperature. (b) Walk outside of your house in the middle of the night with full cloud cover. A cloudy night. Note temperature. Note2:- for the experiment to be done without bias, approximate same time of year should be used. I am sure most can answer this question already, and can confirm the "Greenhouse Effect". No need for glass panes, putty, or tomatoe plants. I fully know that a greenhouse gets hotter becuse it traps the air from covecting and mixing. No need to expalin again. QED. Note3:- 2nd law of Thermodynamics conserved in all scenareos. No need to hide from the "physics police" while conducting above experiment. (thank you HAWKEYE for this experiment idea) Not convinced yet? OK read this post here.... //// QUOTED FROM //// atmoz.org ========================================================= Lazaron 08 Aug 2007 at 4:11 pm -(a bit of the post missed out here... pb)- Heat is the net transfer of energy between two macroscopic systems due to a difference in temperatures. Heat is not a substance (heat is not caloric), heat is not moved or transferred… heat is the net transfer of energy. Serway & Beichner, “Physics for Scientists and Engineers” fifth edition: “Heat is defined as the transfer of energy across the boundary of a system due to a temperature difference between the system and its surroundings.” The second law correctly stated wrt the transfer of heat from a colder system to a warmer one in the form of the Clausius statement: “It is impossible to construct a cyclical machine whose sole effect is the continuous transfer of energy from one object to another object at a higher temperature without the input of energy by work.” Heat refers to the net flow of energy between two systems and the second law refers to macroscopic systems. So we are talking about the net flow of energy between macroscopic systems. Consider two molecules at different temperatures seperated by some distance. Both radiate energy. It is physically possible for a quanta of energy to be radiated from the colder molecule and absorbed by the warmer molecule, but that the reverse does not occur. Since the second law relies on the statistical properties of macroscopic systems this does not violate the second law. Consider two macroscopic systems, adjacent and at different temperatures. It is physically possible (and highly probable) that energy radiated by the colder system will be absorbed by the warmer system. But it is extremely unlikely that this energy will exceed the energy flowing in the other direction. In other words, the net energy flow will be from the warmer system to the colder one. This is what is meant by the seccond law of thermodynamics. It is a fact that greenhouse gasses absorb IR emitted from the surface. It is a fact that these gasses radiate energy in all directions, not caring which direction is ‘down’ or what the temperature of ‘down’ is. It is a fact that these gasses radiate energy toward the surface. It is a fact that some of this energy will be absorbed by the surface. It is a fact though, that energy transferred to the atmosphere from the surface exceeds the energy transferred from the atmosphere to the surface, this is how the second law applies. Without an atmosphere, the energy from the surface would be radiated directly to space. That the atmosphere radiates some energy to the surface results in warming relative to the above scenario. Do not be confused by Gerlich’s conflation of net energy flow with energy flow in one direction. ============================================================== Thank you Lazaron !. Is that your real name or is that a "handle" ? pb.