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: Maurice Winn who wrote (21831)	6/4/2008 11:23:34 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

It is a possibility that increased CO2 creates a more concentrated absorption gradient and that would lead to a faster convection of heat. But CO2 also grows more plants faster and living earth surfaces have some of the lowest emissivity and some of the most moderating of temperature variations. So strictly in the realm of atmospheric heat, CO2 might have a minor cooling function where convection loss caused is greater than the minor increase in insulation. Convention loss would be multiplied by the increased evaporation caused by sooner and quicker convection winds caused by the more compressed heating gradient.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (21831)	6/4/2008 11:21:51 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 36917

even though convection on a grand scale moves vast amounts of energy from low to high altitudes. So, radiant heat absorbed by CO2 at low altitudes is soon convected up towards where it can radiate outwards. I'd have to check up on the processes more carefully than I have done so far. AFAIK, it is the CO2 in the upper atmosphere which has more effect. The upper atmosphere has less water vapor, especially at high latitudes, so the CO2 there sees less H2O band saturation, hence is a more important GHG. All the transporting of heat from low to high, and from the tropics to the poles is simply part of the system. It does not change the fact that CO2 in the right places has a significant effect on radiation. It does concern me that if asked to prove that the CO2 is helping keep us warm, I couldn't actually say just how it is doing so. But many things in life are mysteries to me. I'm happy to just accept that it is doing a bit, albeit not very much. Only 0.7 degrees after a century of vast effort in carbon production and combustion. If it isn't actually causing warming, at least we aren't getting colder. The prior century of vast effort will take considerably less than another century to equal. Meanwhile, the atmospheric CO2 concentration didn't get reset to the same value as at the start 100 years ago. Small details...