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: Maurice Winn who wrote (3742)	2/10/2014 2:53:45 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 4326

The point of the small distances is that it make an intuitively rediculous point to me. There is no graph with better or more informative information. It is the grey hole of ignorance. I have looked and looked and there is really none. From my open directory... toms.homeip.net The thing is as pressure decreases, density decreases and energy content of the volume decreases. But H20 down in the troposphere blocks all energy at CO2 freq from getting back down to earth. Time delayed it all goes out to space. The upper tropo is where CO2 PPM starts to approach H20 and thus model showed warming. But there was none. All the proposed math of how is bullshit.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (3742)	2/10/2014 3:49:12 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4326

What is the difference in the density of the gasses, between the surface and 5 KM, 10 KM, 15 KM, etc ? And, then, what does that difference in density do to the graph... when you're requiring heat transfer from a much less dense medium to a far more dense medium ? Given assumed uniformity in %'s of the gas concentrations at surface and altitude... with the known in the predictable variation in density at altitude...? How much heating at altitude would you need to see... just to balance the mass equation ? Even if exactly correct, the graph is meaningless in relation to the question... or, at least, it is in the degree that it isn't showing you what you think it is... which it isn't, if it isn't normalized for the distribution in density.