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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (535127)	12/8/2009 12:34:41 AM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577152

So if the concentration of CO2 is increasing, what would be its effect on the thermal conductivity of the atmosphere... ie why would you add extra insulation in your house??? Using your analogy it would be like adding a single down feather in one wall and expecting to see a temperature increase inside the house.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (535127)	12/8/2009 7:37:50 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1577152

Nil, I believe. There's not enough CO2 to matter. Furthermore it can only absorb radiation at three narrow bands of spectra. Once there's enough CO2 to absorb all the radiation at that spectra no more can be absorbed. BTW those spectra overlap with the spectra that water vapor absorb as well. The Vostok ice cores show that temperature changes in the past have PRECEDED CO2 changes, not followed them, clearly showing that CO2 hasn't been driving temperature in the past. Furthermore, CO2 is now higher than in the past 400K years, according to those ice cores. But our temperature is NOT higher than its been for the past 400K years. In fact, the medieval warm period a thousand years ago was warmer than today.