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 (22245)	7/18/2008 2:50:35 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Where are flaws? I have not argued in any way with the complicated aspects of CO2. Pointless at the moment. My argument is with the papers treatment of planetary definition of the "Greenhouse Effect". It should be called the "Atmospheric Heating Effect" perhaps as the reference to greenhouses seems to cause confusion. Hence my joke reference to tomato plants. They are not part of the model either. (i) The paper is a good education tool. No argument there, and I have said this before. (ii) It seeks out common misconceptions yet does not refute the real science of what is defined as the "Greenhouse Effect" in the case of a planet with and without an atmosphere that is at least partially opaque to infrared radiation. As in the detailed refutation of the paper (read it from start to finish) here... arxiv.org End of Story. regarding your comment here... the rebuttal you posted assumes Conduction and convection are zero. Also it is based upon the 2nd law of thermodynamics being suspended. Message 24758947 (a) There is no need to confuse yourself with matters of convection and other heat transport mechanisms. The simple models assume all this happens to to full effect in accordance with the physical laws that govern these processes. It does not change the macro picture, and yes, there is a useful concept of an average temperature of a planet (though previous work and definitions may be faulty). and (b) The refutation is not based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics being suspended.