Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:8281 sci.misc:1008 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!hao!oddjob!mimsy!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm From: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.misc Subject: Re: the "greenhouse effect" theory Message-ID: <122@aplcomm.UUCP> Date: 17 Mar 88 15:18:05 GMT References: <22138@bbn.COM> <114@aplcomm.UUCP> <22230@bbn.COM> Sender: news@aplcomm.UUCP Reply-To: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) Organization: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Lines: 70 In article <22230@bbn.COM> eli@BBN.COM (Steve Elias) writes: >In article <114@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt) writes: >>.. dictionary definition of the greenhouse effect .. >>note: no mention of thermal pollution as a direct cause. : : determining causality between thermal runaway and CO2 buildup quickly : turns into a chicken/egg problem. water vapor & cooling techniques : aren't related to the greenhouse effect theory. >se>> there is no valid model for the greenhouse effect. : >>expletive deleted! Check definition of greenhouse effect. Everything >>measurable. No theory. Thus, there is a model. As to its validity, >>the effect itself is easily measured, and thus validified. : : i don't think Funk & Wagnall have hung out on venus for a : million years... this theory is not proven! read an astro : text instead of a dictionary for a more complete look... I believe you are confused as to my definition: I said that the greenhouse effect, as defined, was a confirmed, easily testable model. Now, you are debating the applicability of the valid model to conditions under which is was not generated. This action is not generally recommended as "extrapolating beyond region of fit" also known as "going off on a limb" : dictionaries don't make scientific discoveries! the Earth's : atmosphere cannot be modeled with current technology. thus, : THERE IS NO MODEL. present one and you will make history. : when i say 'model', i mean a working model that can be used : to see what the atmosphere will do under any specific global : conditions -- the problem is IMMENSE and unsolved. You are incorrect in saying that the Earth's atmosphere cannot be modeled. You might be more correct to say "cannot be modeled well", but you must then define by what you mean by "well". There are many, varying, models. You probably know of some of them: can you say "National Weather Service"? Point of fact, these are the primary uses of most of the biggest machines, and one of the best applications of parallel processing. I know of a number of models in other jobs (I was a Navy meterologist) and I am afraid that I would not make history. The problem is, as you stated IMMENSE, and generally falls apart under microclimat conditions, largely due to a lack of sufficient & appropriate data. There are, apparently, more models than you know about. Try the Goddard Space Center for a good one..... >>The waste heat from solar farms on earth is not from outside the earth/ >>atmosphere system. : not true -- they would absorb some energy that would ordinarily : be reflected back into space. : >>If the solar farm were not there, the dirt would >>absort just as much heat as the farm. : no. vegetation has different reflective properties than : do solar cells. And if you read my next line you would have seen this. Why did you leave that out of your quote? Keeping score or seeking knowledge? Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5