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 (530194)	11/18/2009 10:33:40 AM
From: Win Smith	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576865

Um. You argue that if C02 at 387 PPM produces 15 degrees of warming, CO2 at 65000 PPM will produce 16 degrees? Talk about nonlinear. You may continue to make things up as you see fit.

To: HPilot who wrote (530194)	11/18/2009 11:03:01 AM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1576865

"If greenhouse gas is good for only 59 degrees of the 518 degrees of the earth average absolute temp then 1 degree is 1.69%." Where do you get this figure? For one, 0 degrees C is 273 K. And the average temp. of the Earth is around 286. Your figures are way too high, translating to nearly 500 degrees F. In addition, the Earth wouldn't drop to absolute zero sans greenhouse gasses as in your prior assumption. And not all of the warming is due to what we call greenhouse gasses, either. Any atmosphere at all will cause a planet to be warmer than it would be without any. You are gnawing around the concept of "life zone" which are the orbits where water is liquid and, thus, allowing for life as we know it. I haven't googled the figures, but IIRC, the Earth is slightly inside the inner edge of the classic zone, because classically the calculations have neglected atmospheric effects. However, that puts your 59 degree swing way too high(where on Earth did you come up with this?), it is probably closer to 20. It is pretty clear you have, at best, a weak grasp of the facts of the issue. Which probably explains your skepticism. While I grant you it is wise to be skeptical of things you don't understand, your first step should be education instead of denouncement.