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: sense who wrote (3746)	2/10/2014 9:35:35 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4326

The graph is not showing what I think it is because I don't know what it's showing, so you don't know what I think it's showing because I don't know what it's showing. < 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. > As I pointed out, the density differences are enormous over such altitudes, so the graph is obviously intended to show something to do with absorption of energy by the different gases at different altitudes, but it's not clear what [to me anyway]. <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.> I think it's showing something to do with absorption by different gases at different altitudes, but I don't know what. You apparently think you know what it's showing. Can you explain what it's showing please? Maybe it's something useful. Mqurice