On Jun 4, 2009, at 11:37 PM, Mark Iverson wrote:
You are making it up as you go by the look of it. Now consider a
column through which the photons
of S_T are passing through the atmosphere they have a momentum what
happens to that momentum due to
interaction with the particles in the
I don't have a refference, i grabbed that from someones post on a
message board, to, as i said, give thought to those who know more
about the subject than i to see if that made sense.
2009/6/5 Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net:
Just so you all have an idea of what its all about, first, a
Give me the reference, even if its not peer-reviewed...
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: leaking pen [mailto:itsat...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:41 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for some balance?
Im not too
Nice shot on the messenger, well done!
(got anything on his message? )
-Original Message-
From: Nick Palmer [mailto:ni...@wynterwood.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:43 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for
some balance?
Rick Monteverde wrote:
Nice shot on the messenger, well done!
(got anything on his message? )
The page in question was actually directed at his message, not the
messenger, despite the title. There was no ad hominem involved at all.
Anyone unclear on this should go read the page to which
The message, despite the link, was clearly ad-hominem.
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:13 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for
some balance?
The page in
i am in agreement partially. since it included substance, it was
simply an insult, as it was not the basis of his arguement.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Rick Monteverde r...@highsurf.com wrote:
The message, despite the link, was clearly ad-hominem.
-Original Message-
From:
Im not too familiar with some of the mathematic principles mentioned,
but i did find this
First, he mis-applies the Virial theorem. The virial
theorem applies to kinetic vs. potential energy, and it can be shown
that for an atmosphere in equilibrium it is trivially satisfied by
any hydrostically
8 matches
Mail list logo
