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: maceng2 who wrote (20371)	2/15/2008 4:19:09 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

pearly, the sets of whatever past and current temperatures one has provide data or information, but in the context of what one would need to know the answer as too current causes of global warming or cooling for whatever reason, the data set is 99.999% too sparce. And posting a link to a site that shows what percent of whomever suppose other explanations for global warming does nothing to advance or diminish the CO2 supposition. There simply is no physics mechanism that gives CO2 at present levels and projected levels the ability to drive global warming. Do you believe CO2 in the first 10 to 20 meters absorbs all earth emitted radiation at the published absorption bands? If this is true what does it mean? Does it heat that local air making it lighter and thus conduct that heat upward. If more PPM of CO2 are added is Beer's law true and thus all that earth emitted radiation at the published absorption bands gets adsorbed in less than 10 to 20 meters? I see warmer air sooner and stronger convection. How does increasing convection cause global warming?