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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HPilot who wrote (530163)	11/18/2009 9:47:33 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576876

Good lord. Do you think just making things up is science? An extremely brief summary, totally at odds with your bizarre "percentage" argument: The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface. It was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[19] Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed, even by those who do not agree that the recent temperature increase is attributable to human activity. The question is instead how the strength of the greenhouse effect changes when human activity increases the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F).[20][C] The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent[not in citation given]; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7 percent.[21][22] Clouds also affect the radiation balance, but they are composed of liquid water or ice and so are considered separately from water vapor and other gases. en.wikipedia.org Yeah, it's wikipedia, the citation they give is ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu . That one goes into a little more detail but is still pretty straightforward in the introductory section. I don't think even the hardest of hard core skeptics deny the existence of the greenhouse effect as outlined above, e.g. that the earth is about 33 degrees C warmer because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

To: HPilot who wrote (530163)	11/18/2009 10:04:35 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576876

Two things. Why don't you convert that to Farenheit from Kelvin. Second, you are ignoring how processes really work. As you yourself said, this isn't a linear equation. Processes accelerate when they get out of control. That means there are multiplier effects. Not sure it is worth the debate. The reality is that most scientists don't have any doubts about global warming and that it will have catastrophic consequences for us in the next 100 years. Despite where you fall on that belief though, there should be no debate about the reality that oil independence for the US is a very good thing for our economy and national security. Deny that and you will show your true colors for all to see. Do you deny it? If you don't deny it, then you should be for renewable energy and a big push by the US to become oil independent.