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: Thomas A Watson who wrote (21890)	6/6/2008 5:51:54 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

Dumb bunny, the atmosphere is constantly shifting around. There is no such thing as a stationary insulated 1m^2 column for you to be concerned about over the course of 1 year, or for that matter 1 minute. The question is what is the effect of CO2 on the net radiative balance. Nobody is denying that when a cloud drifts over, or a saturated column of air at a given temp drifts by, that you will not see radically different values using your $60 tool. Only you seem confused by this. The question for you is IF you have two hypothetical cones of sky to look at, one with CO2 at 350ppm and one without, and the sky is clear and has low moisture content, what do you think the two readings from your $60 tool will show and why do you think you will see those values? You are the nitwit claiming that 30W/m2 for CO2 is bunk. Fine, show us what it is, and why you think this. Your evidence based on your IR meter is laughable, yet you stated it here as though it meant something. Please do explain.