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 : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (3739)	2/10/2014 2:39:07 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4326

From 6 feet to 3 feet, or 3 feet to 18 inches, wouldn't make any difference. But if the heating graph is correct, then it looks as though it's a matter of 5 kilometres or so for CO2. But perhaps that's a bung graph. I have not checked it. It was lurking around in Cyberspace and Google got it, so maybe it was drawn by a child making pretty lines with a mouse. Given the huge reduction in air density with altitude, there should be greater heating at low altitudes rather than 17 km high where the peak CO2 heating is shown. The ozone heating at 25 km is more reasonable because apparently ozone is concentrated at high altitudes, being formed by solar action on oxygen. Now that I look at it more, I can't see what it means. For the first 10km, CO2 is losing heat, then heating for 3km then cooling again. Water is cooling all the way. A better graph is needed. No doubt there are plenty out there in Cyberspace somewhere. But that one is good enough to show the idea of absorption by altitude. It's not 6 feet, but I don't know what it is. Also, your point about CO2 being trivial compared with water is correct. Water is the biggie. Water and chlorophyll. [Water in the forms of vapour, clouds and snow/ice]. The main effect of CO2 on climate is via plants. Mqurice