A well written article, if it were written about something else. Global warming comes to mind.
That's an interesting article: there are no doubts there's gong to be a major financial storm pretty soon as the sins of the recent past catch up with the global market, however whether BT will 'save' us is pretty dubious.
However, parallels with global warming are not accurate, it's a pity so many sceptics and deniers inhabit this forum but I imagine the US media has a lot to do with this (as well as your education system).
I'm on a ferry on the Tasman strait and can't be bothered producing all the academic references. But even the 'skeptic' scientists who were employed by the corporate PR companies have jumped ship -- the evidence is now overwhelming. Hopefully, a few more super-storms will hit the east coast, wake you from your insular torpor.
But loving the new, aggressive JorgeStolfi.
As for the market....well, I can see some choppy water ahead: volume seems low, the bid order sum is reducing and I have no idea how we managed to breach 700 but I can't see that happening again until the constant flow of negative sentiment recedes.
No. There have been now two separate events where climate scientists have been busted doctoring data. Their warming models have failed repeatedly. You have no way to prove that current storms have anything to do with any sort of warming event. We just had one of the coldest summers and winters on record. The recent expedition by the global warmers were stuck in record ice caps as they attempted to document the shrinking ice caps.
Go find the original data from the Magellan Probe. From this you can get the temperature and pressure at various elevations on Venus. From that you can get the temperature at each pressure. Compare the temperatures on venus to the temperatures on earth at equivalent pressure. The relationship between the two is exactly proportional to the square root of planet's relative distances from the sun, exactly as predicted by the inverse square law and stefan-boltzman law. There is no room for greenhouse effect in explaining this data as far as I can tell.
--END OT
Go find the original data from the Magellan Probe. From this you can get the temperature and pressure at various elevations on Venus. From that you can get the temperature at each pressure. Compare the temperatures on venus to the temperatures on earth at equivalent pressure. The relationship between the two is exactly proportional to the square root of planet's relative distances from the sun, exactly as predicted by the inverse square law and stefan-boltzman law. There is no room for greenhouse effect in explaining this data as far as I can tell.
Is that above or below the clouds? (Below the clouds there should be little greenhouse effect anyway, methinks, since little light gets down there. And above the clouds the shorter wavelengths should be refleted off to space without conversion to infrared, so I would expect no greenhouse effect either.)
It works for Earth troposphere pressures (200-1000 mbar) which overlaps the cloud layer. It is slightly off within the cloud layer. Anyway you seem to be proposing an alternative reason there is no affect of CO2 on venus's temperature, and thus no evidence for runaway greenhouse effect.
It works for Earth troposphere pressures (200-1000 mbar) which overlaps the cloud layer. It is slightly off within the cloud layer. Anyway you seem to be proposing an alternative reason there is no affect of CO2 on venus's temperature, and thus no evidence for runaway greenhouse effect.
Well, I always understood that the greenhouse effect was this: shorter wavelength radiation crosses the atmosphere in spite of any CO2, gets absorbed by the ground, is re-radiated as infrared, and this is prevented from escaping by the CO2.
If so then Venus may not have a greenhouse effect because the shorter-wavelength radiation gets reflected by the clouds without being converted to infrared, and therefore does not get trapped by the CO2. But I am just, er, academizing about it.
Thanks, first sensible response I have seen to this data. I will think about it and make a new thread possibly. It still does not explain why two planets with vastly different albedo's and atmosphere concentrations would have the same temperature (corrected for pressure and incident energy) if other factors were important, though.