Talk:Solar greenhouse

message: This article only got created because of the Great Greenhouse effect war. Nonetheless it has some useful info. What should happen to it? Much of the how-do-GH's-work is redundant, because of the GHE page's current state. William M. Connolley 2005-06-29 21:24:45 (UTC).
:The article does have useful content on the details of greenhouses. It should be more tightly linked to the regular greenhouse page and de-coupled from the greenhouse effect page. The overheavy reference section needs to be weeded to focus more on the greenhouse details and delete those only dealing with the climate aspects. -Vsmith 30 June 2005 01:28 (UTC)
The claim that the greenhouse effect works by blocking convection is absurd. That's like saying a tea kettle works by blocking drainage. It says nothing about what drives the temperature up. (With your windows and doors closed, your home also acts as a barrier to convection, but that doesn't make it a greenhouse.) I first encountered this claim on a web site funded by the oil industry that professed to "explain" the greenhouse effect but only clouded the issue (If you'll excuse the expression). --MiguelMunoz 08:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim is correct. Please see the greenhouse effect article for details. This was discussed extensively there - please go and read the discussion there William M. Connolley 10:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read all of his contributions, but there is no contribution with those numbers, nor is there one that refutes (or even addresses) my claim. I maintain my position. The claim is absurd. If you disagree, you're welcome to point out the flaw in my reasoning. The claim is equally wrong on the greenhouse effect page. --MiguelMunoz 18:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're wrong' but the place to debate it is the GHE page, not here William M. Connolley 20:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question in place can be easily solved by experiment. Any surface can block convection, but certain surfaces deal with IR radiation differently. Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical Physics at the TU (Technical University) of Braunschweig, Germany, most recently wrote a long paper to disprove the global warming hypothesis, in which as an aside he revisited the glasshouse debate. He pointed to experiments made by R.W. Wood already in 1909, in which Wood had built two identical boxes as "model greenhouses" and covered one with a glass shield and one with a sheet made of rock salt (NaCl) which does not absorb IR. Surprisingly the salt covered box had become slightly warmer, resulting from the fact that solar light reaching the earth still contains an own portion of IR (which is kept out of the glasshouse by the glass). Wood then blocked out incoming IR by installing another glass plate as a filter for inbound solar light. After this modification both boxes heated to a point of about 55°C, with the difference between them below 1°C. This means that the glasshouse effect is mainly due to blocking of convection, with the radiation portion to be considered neglectable.--Kermecke 10:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gerlich is a nutter, though he has read Wood correctly. Gerlichs paper is trash. A colleague of mine read it and decided it was probably malicious, ie deliberately misleading, rather than merely confused, as I though. Either way its not a suitable ref for wiki. Back to Wood, you'll find his (perfectly valid) expt already described on the GHE page William M. Connolley 15:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: William, this lemma here is about warming in a glass house, which Gerlich correctly describes, so he is an absolutely valid source for the topic. So what is your objection against mentioning him? That he is a strong and vocal opponent against the global warming dogma which OTOH is - as far as I understand it from your intro - your income base as a climate modeller? Taking out Gerlich as a source here because of your (or your buddy's) opinion regarding a different topic means censorship. This should not be the Wiki way. I am happy to discuss with you views on GW issues and Gerlich's arguments at a separate place. - Cheers - Klaus --Kermecke 08:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: William, you belong to a group of closely aligned people who publish their shared views on a website called "Real Climate", on which you and your colleagues claim to be something close to the only serious climatologists on the planet. A large number of scientists including Professor Gerlich critize your scientific positions and offer different views. So you are party to this dispute and not the referee, and it might create concerns in the scientific and analyst community if you go on to surpress different opinions by calling them names and censoring any hints to inconvenient scientific sources.--Kermecke 21:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gerlach paper was not a source used in writing this article. The Wood experiments are well referenced elsewhere as used in the writing of the article. The introduction of a paper discussing Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects... is not needed here as the article is not about the climate greenhouse effect, rather about how a glasshouse works. The inclusion after the fact of this redundant reference would appear to be pushing an unrelated pov here or just spam. Now please keep the discussion civil and cease making COI accusations - keep this discussion page on track and about glasshouses. Vsmith 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had added the Gerlich reference as a prep to edit the main article later which admittedly I had not done yet. So your first point is valid. However, if I invested the time and edited the article, certain people would remove the Gerlich ref again anyway, wouldn't they? --Kermecke 10:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, because its trash. We can, if you really want to, discuss the virtues of the article, but please do it in the right place, ie GHE not here William M. Connolley 19:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As expected, and that would be a clear breach of Wikipedia's COI policy. BTW, Gerlich thinks that your (RealClimate) positions are wrong (he too likes strong language!). However, he does not censor or suppress the stuff you write.  Matter of fact is that his article contains a detailled physical analysis how a glasshouse works. This makes it a valid source for this topic here.--Kermecke 10:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Surprise surprise. Wurbling about COI is dull.  G's paper contains too much trash to be linked by wiki; if it says anything new that Wood didn't say, I missed it William M. Connolley 20:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This seems to be a reoccurring discussion. The bottom line is that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. So whatever you (or I) believe doesn't matter. Instead we have to cite reliable sources, and there are several that claim that this is the case. Unless someone can provide sources of similar quality saying otherwise, we shouldn't change the text. —Apis (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future of this article 

message: I hope no one will immediately brand this page a POV fork and vote it into deletion:
#There is no NPOV dispute about it going on right now, that I know of.
#It is a legitimate spinoff of the Greenhouse article (the one about plants in a building with glass walls and roof). --Uncle Ed 17:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV fork?

message: Following was added:
.
Include the other uses in article or in the other greenhouse-article. Perhaps a rewrite is necessairy.
KVDP (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure a white plastic greenhouse actually *is* a greenhouse William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've deleted the white plastic pix. The glass house pictured definitely *is* a greenhouse, so I've moved that up. Does the white plastic one "A solar greenhouse works by letting in solar radiation and trapping the energy from that radiation to increase and maintain the internal temperature" - or is it, as its description says, to keep the seeds moist? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added 2 pictures with extra notes on other uses 

message: I've reverted it. As I explained before; this is the original problem. The extensive stuff by VP doesn't help; hopefully we can discuss this here without too much noise. If that fails (as it very likely will) I suggest you come to my talk page and we can have a nie quiet chat William M. Connolley (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the new section.  Let's agree to keep the comments in this section focused on the article, and refrain from any comments about editors.Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...but I see nothing that is a valid refutation of this paragraph 

message: :One side issue is the part in the lead that I deleted, referring the reader to other articles for more detail.  I didn't find anyone arguing for them on this page--perhaps there's an old discussion I missed?  It seems to me that, rather than more information on the topic of solar greenhouses, those have more information on radiation effects on the Earth's climate.  It seems strange to have that in the lead, as it's tangential, not background on this.  I would think more background for this might be solar radiation or thermal radiation.  Was there a reason to keep that in, or did it simply come along for the ride in the revert of the other stuff?Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you miss Greenhouse_effect#Real_greenhouses? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did see that--sorry I should have explained.  It refers back to this article as the main article.  So referring people to that section would seem to set up a set of circular references.  If there is info there that isn't explained enough here, we should explain it here, well, and make sure we don't leave the reader with misconceptions, if this is to be the main article on the topic, which seems like the right choice to me.  I wouldn't object to putting that in a "see also" list at the end.  Ccrrccrr (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you have to actually read what it says in that section William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have read it. I think it's good. I don't see how that changes the circular reference problem.Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I assumed that If there is info there that isn't explained enough here, we should explain it here, meant you hadn't read it. Yes there is stuff there that isn't explained here, and no it belongs over there not here. GH is the technical article that explains how the greenhouse effect works and distinguishes it from how real greenhouses work. This article is about the very limited subject of greenhouses-for-plants. Yes there is a circular ref problem; I've have a go at sorting that out now William M. Connolley (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Now Greenhouse_effect#The distinction_between the greenhouse effect_and_real_greenhouses etc William M. Connolley (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:   Good, thanks.  Now I'll edit the lead to reference that appropriately as a source for the distinction not for more detail on the description of how a solar greenhouse works.Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aside: lead references to other articles