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: Thomas A Watson who wrote (22468)7/24/2008 6:24:31 PM
From: maceng2  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36917
 
Incorrect.

Smiths paper was advanced to counter your absolutely ridiculous statement that the atmosphere does not help warm the planet, and that any such warming process contravenes the second law of thermodynamics. Anyone with the IQ above that of an ice cube, who also understands what the triple point of water means, understands that Smiths paper trounces any such ridiculous notion.

You asked what flaws were in Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D Tscheuschner paper, I gave you one glaring "clanger" of an example.

Message 24773637

Apart from having an argument with yourself what Smiths introduction is all about; you have yet to point me to any flaw in his paper. That is a clear proof that a planet can only be heated above the T4 temperature if it has an atmosphere that is at least partially opaque to microwave radiation, but transparent to short wave radiation. Perhaps there are other processes but it is sufficient proof for the subject material at hand... the planet Earth and neighbors both with and without an atmosphere. The exact quote is (with my emboldment)...

4. The only way the fourth power of the surface temperature can exceed this limit is to be covered by an atmosphere that is at least partially opaque to infrared radiation. This is the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

All the details can be read here if you need to refresh your memory.

Message 24753904