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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (41811)	8/6/2013 1:42:24 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Your claim is based upon a variation of the farce of radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is bogus. Your claim that Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics is "But the paper is not a critique of catastrophic AGW theory. Instead, it's a critique of how global warming is sometimes explained to lay people." proves to me that you have a severe reading comprehension problem or 1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. 2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes. Or lying about having read the document. A simple reading of the Abstract I say proves the point. Above is your interpretation of the Abstract. What part of C D E and F is a critique of how global warming is explained to lay people like Bilow. What parts are not a critique of catastrophic AGW theory DUUHHHH!!!! Abstract The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified. Note; this abstract is from . toms.homeip.net created by me with the permission of the author. It is a html tranlation of version 3.