Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (19395)	1/6/2008 11:58:45 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 36921

Oh, my mistake then. IMO, the GHG argument is very simple: Since all heat in and out is radiation, GHGs end up trapping a bit more net radiation AT THE SAME TEMP. Therefore, the temp must go up a bit, to achieve the same net balanced flux again. That simple. How you stir the heat around on the planet does not change that. All the messy climate details are about the heat stirring processes. And they are very messy, and we don't understand all of them by a longshot. All the knowledgeable AGW deniers are holding out hope that somehow the stirring processes result in additional net outward radiative transport BY SOME MEANS. For example, if you shifted more heat from the tropics to the poles, you might actually transport more heat out radiatively at the poles at a net lower global temp. But this begs the question of how more net heat heads to the poles without some increased lower lattitude temps driving such a change. With hand waving, it might sound plausible, but in detail, it ain't working. Nobody has come up with any such model that matches any observed data, which would suggest it might happen.