SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (22311)7/19/2008 2:03:23 PM
From: neolib  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36917
 
So let's get this straight. The best climate models predict all sorts of things about how CO2 should affect the climate, but you have zero'ed in on only on, the tropical atmosphere at 10km, and unless you see what the models predict for that spot, you don't believe anything else about the models? Is that it in a nutshell?



To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (22311)7/19/2008 2:05:53 PM
From: neolib  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36917
 
Yes the supposition the atmospheric greenhouse effect however reduces radiation loss is what it's all about.

Nonsense. The net radiation loss is identical for very obvious reasons. The spectrum is different, hence the temperature is different. The total radiation cannot be either reduced or increased. You are one confused dufus.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News