Carl’s theory has a real. problem, one that I never expected, and I have to think of some way to resolve it. The problem is of the linguistic type. When I write the words, “greenhouse energy effect,” I am using a term that is clearly defined and widely used in every day communication, in the sciences and beyond. The problem is that I am giving it a definition that exists in my own mind, which I think makes sense, except for the fact that my definition is not the same as that of anyone else. Poets can get away with aberrations of this type, but it doesn’t work with matters that are of scientific interest. If one thinks a term is not being defined properly, as in this case, one must be able to explain why, and then cause it to be corrected, which is quite a challenge, or else not use the term. I am inclined toward thinking it should be corrected, however great the challenge, and will proceed accordingly, starting today. I can see no good reason why the term “greenhouse energy effect” should be narrowly constrained, applying only to gases, when many other substances can be properly evaluated with exactly the same three words.
I invite you to go to Google or any other search engine and type in phrases like “greenhouse energy,” or “greenhouse energy effect,” or anything connected, and see what comes up. I did so today, and found nothing but “gases” under consideration for definition in the postings that were offered. Here is how Britannica handles it, for one noteworthy example: “Greenhouse effect, a warming of Earth’s surface and troposphere (the lowest layer of the atmosphere) caused by the presence of water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, and certain other gases in the air. Of those gases, known as greenhouse gases, water vapour has the largest effect.” I could find not one other source, of any kind, out of dozens that were looked at, that had a substantially different approach. Gases are an integral part of the definition. That could all be switched some day, but not very easily, and not without some pretty thorough discussion and reaching of agreement in places of influence.
As I said above, and now reconfirm, my mind contains a different definition of greenhouse energy. It should not be confined to the work of gases. I cannot think of any good reason for confining it that way without at least reviewing all the possible alternatives. Has that ever been done? There are in fact a lot of things besides gases that are suspended in the atmosphere. The various substances from which precipitable water (PW) is composed are certainly included on that list, which is what I keep talking about, but that’s only for starters. A full list would include a multitude of different things, in numbers that are uncountable. You can even add objects like airplanes, balloons, birds and flying insects to round things out in an absolute way.
I have always had in mind an assumption that, setting aside certain gases made of molecules containing just two atoms, everything suspended in the atmosphere is just as capable of trapping infrared energy in that situation as they would be while sitting on the surface. And when they do trap photons they will emit others of equal strength as a normal response. The ones emitted, no matter the source, will be flying off in all directions, with half aimed toward space and half toward the surface. If all of this is correct, looked at only from the standpoint of activity, I can’t see any difference between this activity in a broadly universal sense and that of the greenhouse gases as described by definition.
Thus, it affect our sex buy viagra in spain life greatly. Have you ever had to reschedule an activity around your menstrual period? Heavy blood pdxcommercial.com cialis 20 mg flow is not always a sign that something indicates a medical condition. Treatment for chronic instances might be issued in the form of prescription treatments including Avanafil and commander cialis Vardenafil tablets. It also it locates solutions, and interrupts the habit of eating to viagra properien you could look here satisfy “emotional hunger”.The gases are definitely special, perhaps uniquely so, from the standpoint of being highly selective about which photons they are able to trap, with reference to many available wavelengths. They all have limitations. Any non-gas object composed from a condensed assembly of molecules supposedly might have fewer limitations, perhaps none at all within the infrared range. These objects would also have other differences just because of their density, marked by a high level of photon energy activity in their inner parts. Whatever these differences may be, emissions away from their surfaces will ultimately tend to reach a state of equilibrium with the energetic power of all the incoming photons that are trapped.
Regarding the further progress of outgoing emissions, after departing from any source suspended in the atmosphere, assuming that half are aimed toward the surface at the point of emission, should we not also assume that all of these photons, regardless of their source, will either reach the surface without interruption or be trapped by something in their pathway that initiates more of the same kind of processing? Have any differences ever been observed? Sooner or later some of the energy is sure to reach the ultimate surface, one that is larger by countless orders of magnitude. Surface warming can proceed from there on a whole new scale, marking an end point tied to the definition of greenhouse energy in terms of effects. I am unable to imagine any difference in the outcome at this point due specifically to activity peculiar to the workings of greenhouse gases that may have been involved. I would be glad to hear other opinions about this matter.
Carl