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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: teevee who wrote (49756)	4/1/2014 3:14:39 PM
From: Land Shark	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86355

More stupid tripe... there's no scientific basis for that saturation theory. It's just another piece of nonsense the deniers pull out of their patuties.

To: teevee who wrote (49756)	5/14/2014 5:08:11 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 86355

We need to include plant cover and snow cover as variables too, not to mention the amount of phytoplankton and therefore CO2 absorption into the oceans. Not just clouds, ocean currents, rain, humidity. Don't forget cosmic ray variability. <The models make brutal estimates and many assumptions (guesses). “Lab-warming” doesn’t necessarily translate to “planet-warming”: Test tubes don’t have ocean currents, clouds, or rain. The “clouds and humidity” factor is bogglingly complex. For example, high clouds tend to warm the planet, but low clouds tend to cool it. So which effect rules? Models don’t know, but they assume clouds are net-warming. This is not a minor point: The feedback from clouds and humidity accounts for more than half of carbon’s alleged effect. E’Gad.> Mqurice