On 09/10/2013 18:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/10/2013 17:49, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 09/10/2013 17:38, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/10/2013 16:50, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 09/10/2013 16:10, dennis@home wrote:
Greenhouses do work. That is why the term greenhouse effect was
coined
in the first place to describe what greenhouse gases do but the
mechanism is different as most people ready understand even if the
likes
of TFP deny that there is any positive feedback involved.


The mechanism is the same, trap longer wavelengths of light and warm
the
insides up.
If you think the mechanism is different then maybe you should explain
your mechanism.

TFP gave you a helpful tip just upthread. You really should have taken
note of it as you are both on the same side.

The greenhouse effect is in essence simple. The greenhouse gas absorbs
infra-red radiation and re-radiates it equally in all directions. The
net result is that the amount of uv that eventually radiates into space
is significantly less than would have radiated had there been no
greenhouse gases to intercept it. This is inconsequential in a
greenhouse both because there is only a 6 foot column of air, not the 6
mile column in the atmosphere and, much more importantly, the air
outside the greenhouse is much the same as the air inside and it is the
difference in temperature between outside and inside that makes a
greenhouse so useful. Greenhouses work by trapping warm air which, if
not contained, would naturally rise.

Well I think that proves that you just don't have a clue.

I rather think your comment proves a) that it is you that doesn't have a
clue and b) that your mind is so tightly closed to reason that it makes
the dark of the polar night look positively bright.

Never mind I am sure all our other climate changer deniers will stay
silent out of sympathy so you will only have me to contend with.

Do you want a list of the cock-ups you made in your reply or do you want
to go and find out what was wrong in what you said.

I think the list would make you look pretty stupid so why not..

What do you suppose is wrong with "The net result is that the amount of
uv that eventually radiates into space is significantly less than would
have radiated had there been no greenhouse gases to intercept it."

I have no idea why I should have typed uv when I meant infra-red.

What do you think the glass does in a greenhouse if not stopping the IR
radiation from being radiated and hence making the inside warmer than
the outside. Its just as well that it does or passive solar heating
would be a waste of time.

The glass (or plastic) keeps the hot air from rising.

etc.

Do tell.

--
Roger Chapman