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: maceng2 who wrote (22306)	7/19/2008 1:37:58 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Ah, another idiot shows up. Get rid of the crap outside the greenhouse that is making a fool of yourself. Start with two identically sized buildings having well insulated walls, floor and ceiling and the same internal gas concentration and both located on the lunar surface during lunar daylight (i.e. no external atmosphere to confuse a dufus). Now assume that one has a roof of clear glass, while the other has a roof of the same material but with opaque white paint covering it, i.e. the only difference between the two is the radiative behavior of the roof. Zero difference wrt to convection and conduction. Comprehend this Mr Moron? What is the temp of the inside of these two structures? When you figure that out you will understand what heats a greenhouse. Do you understand the difference between heating and cooling? Any freaking idiot should be able to figure out that you can cool a greenhouse by allowing convection or conduction to extract heat , but only a moron goes on to then proclaim that a greenhouse heats up because you have convectively isolated it, as the above should make clear to you. In the above both building are treated IDENTICALLY for convection and conduction. Why you fools can't get rid of the extraneous details that befuddle you is beyond me.

To: maceng2 who wrote (22306)	7/19/2008 1:46:55 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

Yes the supposition the atmospheric greenhouse effect however reduces radiation loss is what it's all about. And three separate pieces testimony from real members of the science community report simple plain facts and analysis that all agree with simple common sense. Monckton reports that all the constants derived or guessed and put in the equations are out to lunch and concludes when corrected to reality the supposed effect is 1F not the several of the IPCC and scientist AL gore. G and T through a framework of Physics fully explain the mis-nomer of Greenhouse effect and further they explain how the entire basis of the supposition or effect and it's application or equations are bogus. Before G and T I was not certain they were bogus, but I know now they are. Monckton just shows the bogus equations are all overstated. That is also basically what is supposed by Richard J. Petschauer, Senior Member IEEE in Carbon Heat Trapping: Merely A Bit Player in Global Warming rjpetsch.homeip.net And now also we have, read the entire article, what faith does it take to doubt it. Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005 theaustralian.news.com.au 1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it. Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever. If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.