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: neolib who wrote (21902)	6/7/2008 11:23:36 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 36917

The 30W/m^2 definition of blocking by CO2 is as imaginary as the conditions that define it are imaginary. A non contact IR thermometer measures real and actual energy. Are you stupid or lying when you assert this is a relevant questions. What is the difference in temp as reported by your $60 meter when aimed at a clear, dry, sky, if you could test two times: 1) with "normal" atmosphere, and 2) with 30W/m^2 more radiation loss to space, i.e. the claimed blocking effect of CO2 removed? Do you not know that for many variations of temperature for a clear sky that the delta in radiation would be 30W/m^2. Stop lying neolib and admit you are a clueless fool in your comprehension of all science. But for all variations of temperature for a clear sky that the delta in radiation would be 30W/m^2, removing 387ppm of CO2 from that column would show no change in temperature readings. Because the instrument does not have an accuracy in ppm.