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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Global Warming -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sageyrain who wrote (132)	6/19/2008 1:58:07 PM
From: Archie Meeties	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 185

I didn't see his corrected post. In the initial post he took a section of the atmosphere, posted up some numbers about water vapor and said "I hereby refute global warming". That's his "case", and it's bunk. It's bunk because it's selective data - the overall atmosphere shows an increase in water vapor. It's bunk because he doesn't understand what the role of water vapor is in global warming. Water vapor cycles through the atmosphere completely in about 2 weeks - it evaporates, forms clouds, turns to rain. So compared with carbon dioxide, which lasts over a year, it is a response gas than something driving the climate. Is that clear? Water vapor increases in response to broader climate changes, it doesn't lead it. That role is played by other greenhouse gases that stay in the atmosphere for years.