Look, this really shouldn't devolve into an argument about semantics. Sophistry does often imply intent, and "after the manner of the glass panes in hot-houses" possibly refers to the fact that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and greenhouses both trap heat, not that they use the exactly the same mechanism to do the trapping.
Regardless, we are all telling you now that there is only one effect correctly referred to as "the greenhouse effect" in science, and that it not the same mechanism that keeps greenhouses warm. Any source that claims otherwise is incorrect, no matter how official-sounding the domain name.
Are you proposing that the CO2 knows whether it is in a real greenhouse or not?
No, I am proposing that the CO2 would be aproximately the same inside and outside the greenhouse, so its effect would not be noticeable. In the experiment, the greenhouse temperature is compared to the external temperature, right?
Regardless of the size of the greenhouse, the increased temperature (increased, that is, over the external temperature) will be due to trapped convection. The same CO2 density inside and outside the greenhouses means that the CO2 would increase the greenhouse temperature and the external temperature by the same amount.
That is why we say the experiment on that website has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
The XKCD "trustworthiness scale" is a cartoon joke.
Uh, yes. That parenthetical statement I made that referenced a cartoon joke, was a joke, an attempt at humour on my part. I am sorry it offended you so. If I may ask, why did you chose to link to the PDF document when there are (as you noted) many other HTML documents mirroring the original? Also please note that I did not "ask [you] about credibility". We are discussing these pages on content, only.
In any case, the original source page was up when I googled for it before I posted. As I stated, it had little to no relevence to the article you referenced.
That is a report produced by the person who wrote the web article, linked to from the article. It seems to contain the conclusions listed in the "Results" section of the web article. In it is a very different experiment to the one listed on the website (that doesn't even involve measuring temperatures in a greenhouse at all!)
That report is rife with errors, but that is an entirely separate subject. What matters is that the experiment described in it does not correspond with the website. On the other hand, his other provided source does have an experiment similar to the web article. However, it does not contain the results in the article.
This is (partly) why we say that that page is absurd.
I understand what the author was trying to say. I am saying his premise is entirely wrong.
Firstly, there is only one definition of "The Greenhouse Effect", not two as claimed by the article. That is the greenhouse effect of global warming. The mechanism that keeps greenhouses warm is not called the greenhouse effect.
There is no attempt at sophistry, no double-meaning, and you are not living in the Matrix.
Secondly, because of this, OF COURSE the greenhouse effect's impact on the temperature in the greenhouse was minimal. The dominant force in that system would be the trapping of the heat that would normally have been lost by convection, i.e. the normal mechanism by which greenhouses stay hot. Trapped radiation (i.e. the greenhouse effect) would have minimal effect.
As a footnote, that PDF (which appears to be a text paste of a website in order to move the contents up the trustworthyness scale) really doesn't apply to the contents of that page. Regardless, google the title of that document and you will find all the refutations you seek.
Since postscripts seem to be popular in this thread, I will add one here containing direct quotes from that article.
(I will not get into the maths here to keep this article readable for non-math people.)
Judging by the contents of the article, I would suggest that the exclusion of the maths was also to keep the article writable for non-math people.
The climate science version of the greenhouse effect, [is an] example of the creation of a simulacrum [...] And just like the Matrix, only a few people are able to see through it.
Frankly, that "Climate Sophistry" page is absurd. Never mind that two fifths of the article is a section entitled "Modern Philosophical Analysis", the basic premise of the article displays a basic misunderstanding of fact.
The article claims (in the most obtuse way imaginable) that the way the so-called "greenhouse effect" does not mirror the actual observed behaviour of greenhouses here on Earth.
If the authour had even a basic grounding in science he would know that "the greenhouse effect" is NOT how greenhouses retain heat. The greenhouse effect was so named in 1824 by analogy to the effects observed in a greenhouse, not because the mechanism was the same.
Is "greenhouse effect" therefore a bad name for way radiation is trapped in a planet's atmosphere? Maybe, but in almost any introductory text on the subject you will see phrases like "would have a sort of greenhouse effect" that clearly show the term to be descriptive, not prescriptive.
Regardless, I cannot understand how any reasonable person could make that leap from "bad name" to "ALL CLIMATE SCIENCE IS LIEZ OMG".
That kind of depends on what help you need. For example, if you are looking for some facial feminisation surgery, you may find what you need at expertsexchange.com.
[quote]Sometimes it's fun to feed the trolls - it's a pleasure knowing there's someone out there who's stupider than you.[/quote]
A troll's goal is to goad you into replying to his comments. Feeding a troll means the troll has bested you. If the trolls convince you to to reply, for whatever reason, he has outsmarted you.
I agree, even though clip-using firearms are almost entirely historical. This clip 'controversy' I see more along the lines of the media saying 'hacker' when they mean 'cracker'. People make it out to be like calling the entire PC case a 'hard drive'.
Look, if you want to play the 'mess with the wording rather than address the issues' game, we can:
"A clip has always meant a a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit, ready for insertion into a gun. It's just that it used to be non-mechanical, and now it's got a feed mechanism."
You are just going to have to deal with the fact that a removeable magazine can also be called a clip, even though the meanings used to be subtley different.
... So you make the directory unreadable, by literally setting the permissions to not allow it to be read, and somehow suggest that it is still readable?
You are correct about the lmgtfy link, that was supposed to be a google.com/search?q=hellban link instead. Must have been a brainfart or typo or something. Can you imagine how embarrased I must be?
1 Terabit a second on the wire translates to about 100 Gigabytes a second of actual data transfer. Most modern encoding schemes and encapsulation protocols average 10 bits to represent an octet.
Besides, teachers are not the only ones who can turn mediocre students into bad ones. Bad parents, bad peers, bad genes, bad environment, bad societies...
Slashdot Mirror
Look, this really shouldn't devolve into an argument about semantics. Sophistry does often imply intent, and "after the manner of the glass panes in hot-houses" possibly refers to the fact that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and greenhouses both trap heat, not that they use the exactly the same mechanism to do the trapping.
Regardless, we are all telling you now that there is only one effect correctly referred to as "the greenhouse effect" in science, and that it not the same mechanism that keeps greenhouses warm. Any source that claims otherwise is incorrect, no matter how official-sounding the domain name.
Are you proposing that the CO2 knows whether it is in a real greenhouse or not?
No, I am proposing that the CO2 would be aproximately the same inside and outside the greenhouse, so its effect would not be noticeable. In the experiment, the greenhouse temperature is compared to the external temperature, right?
Regardless of the size of the greenhouse, the increased temperature (increased, that is, over the external temperature) will be due to trapped convection. The same CO2 density inside and outside the greenhouses means that the CO2 would increase the greenhouse temperature and the external temperature by the same amount.
That is why we say the experiment on that website has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
The XKCD "trustworthiness scale" is a cartoon joke.
Uh, yes. That parenthetical statement I made that referenced a cartoon joke, was a joke, an attempt at humour on my part. I am sorry it offended you so. If I may ask, why did you chose to link to the PDF document when there are (as you noted) many other HTML documents mirroring the original? Also please note that I did not "ask [you] about credibility". We are discussing these pages on content, only.
In any case, the original source page was up when I googled for it before I posted. As I stated, it had little to no relevence to the article you referenced.
There are two sources provided for the web article's results. You probably meant to link here: http://www.principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
That is a report produced by the person who wrote the web article, linked to from the article. It seems to contain the conclusions listed in the "Results" section of the web article. In it is a very different experiment to the one listed on the website (that doesn't even involve measuring temperatures in a greenhouse at all!)
That report is rife with errors, but that is an entirely separate subject. What matters is that the experiment described in it does not correspond with the website. On the other hand, his other provided source does have an experiment similar to the web article. However, it does not contain the results in the article.
This is (partly) why we say that that page is absurd.
I understand what the author was trying to say. I am saying his premise is entirely wrong.
Firstly, there is only one definition of "The Greenhouse Effect", not two as claimed by the article. That is the greenhouse effect of global warming. The mechanism that keeps greenhouses warm is not called the greenhouse effect.
There is no attempt at sophistry, no double-meaning, and you are not living in the Matrix.
Secondly, because of this, OF COURSE the greenhouse effect's impact on the temperature in the greenhouse was minimal. The dominant force in that system would be the trapping of the heat that would normally have been lost by convection, i.e. the normal mechanism by which greenhouses stay hot. Trapped radiation (i.e. the greenhouse effect) would have minimal effect.
As a footnote, that PDF (which appears to be a text paste of a website in order to move the contents up the trustworthyness scale) really doesn't apply to the contents of that page. Regardless, google the title of that document and you will find all the refutations you seek.
Since postscripts seem to be popular in this thread, I will add one here containing direct quotes from that article.
(I will not get into the maths here to keep this article readable for non-math people.)
Judging by the contents of the article, I would suggest that the exclusion of the maths was also to keep the article writable for non-math people.
The climate science version of the greenhouse effect, [is an] example of the creation of a simulacrum [...] And just like the Matrix, only a few people are able to see through it.
Frankly, that "Climate Sophistry" page is absurd. Never mind that two fifths of the article is a section entitled "Modern Philosophical Analysis", the basic premise of the article displays a basic misunderstanding of fact.
The article claims (in the most obtuse way imaginable) that the way the so-called "greenhouse effect" does not mirror the actual observed behaviour of greenhouses here on Earth.
If the authour had even a basic grounding in science he would know that "the greenhouse effect" is NOT how greenhouses retain heat. The greenhouse effect was so named in 1824 by analogy to the effects observed in a greenhouse, not because the mechanism was the same.
Is "greenhouse effect" therefore a bad name for way radiation is trapped in a planet's atmosphere? Maybe, but in almost any introductory text on the subject you will see phrases like "would have a sort of greenhouse effect" that clearly show the term to be descriptive, not prescriptive.
Regardless, I cannot understand how any reasonable person could make that leap from "bad name" to "ALL CLIMATE SCIENCE IS LIEZ OMG".
Leave it to a Nazi to be pedantic about ovens.
Oblig. http://xkcd.com/243/
That kind of depends on what help you need. For example, if you are looking for some facial feminisation surgery, you may find what you need at expertsexchange.com.
I thought the white drapes were so that the drones could easily track the stick's position?
Says the people who load it into the nose of the nearest passing elephant?
Alternatively, the torso or midsection of the car, because that's where the 'trunk' obviously is?
Re: your sig:
[quote]Sometimes it's fun to feed the trolls - it's a pleasure knowing there's someone out there who's stupider than you.[/quote]
A troll's goal is to goad you into replying to his comments. Feeding a troll means the troll has bested you. If the trolls convince you to to reply, for whatever reason, he has outsmarted you.
I agree, even though clip-using firearms are almost entirely historical. This clip 'controversy' I see more along the lines of the media saying 'hacker' when they mean 'cracker'. People make it out to be like calling the entire PC case a 'hard drive'.
used to be a building, and now it's
So... the meaning changed?
Look, if you want to play the 'mess with the wording rather than address the issues' game, we can:
"A clip has always meant a a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit, ready for insertion into a gun. It's just that it used to be non-mechanical, and now it's got a feed mechanism."
You are just going to have to deal with the fact that a removeable magazine can also be called a clip, even though the meanings used to be subtley different.
I regret to inform you that language usage changes. If it didn't, when you said 'magazine' you would have linked to this instead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_(artillery)
Sadly, you need to move with the time.
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=gun+magazine%2Cartillery+magazine%2Cammunition+clip&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=
Jepardy answers, not news headlines: Are Slashdot titles more like them?
... So you make the directory unreadable, by literally setting the permissions to not allow it to be read, and somehow suggest that it is still readable?
True... the phrase I was searching for was 'protocol overhead'. I did a quick google and found the following:
http://sd.wareonearth.com/~phil/net/overhead/
Since we are talking ethernet, here are the numbers:
Ethernet: 1500/(38+1500) = 97.5293 %
TCP: (1500-52)/(38+1500) = 94.1482 %
You are correct about the lmgtfy link, that was supposed to be a google.com/search?q=hellban link instead. Must have been a brainfart or typo or something. Can you imagine how embarrased I must be?
This technique is widely used against trolls on various Internet forums. It is often called 'Hellbanning'
1 Terabit a second on the wire translates to about 100 Gigabytes a second of actual data transfer. Most modern encoding schemes and encapsulation protocols average 10 bits to represent an octet.
EVERYBODY has a bad teacher at some point.
Besides, teachers are not the only ones who can turn mediocre students into bad ones. Bad parents, bad peers, bad genes, bad environment, bad societies...
You give the teachers too much credit.
It's okay, I have tcpdump.
Or, It's okay, I have coaxial network cable, a multimeter and a quick eye.
No, they mean Darwin and Mendel, surely?
The 'imperial system' isn't in place. You use 'United States customary units.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units
Re: your sig:
Dark Matter is the Phlogiston of Contemporary Cosmology
Does that mean that quantum field theory is the luminiferous aether of modern particle physics?
More than than, a plain sheet of paper placed in the sun is brighter than a candle.