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 (51445)	5/14/2014 1:21:41 PM
From: Eric	Respond to of 86355

We are not anywhere near saturation. Not anywhere close! I'll post this again: youtube.com Describe to me what is actually happening. Eric Then I'll explain the physics of this experiment to you.

To: teevee who wrote (51445)	5/14/2014 1:25:35 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 86355

It's not. We don't get out of this that easily. Here is real physics. A Saturated Gassy Argument — group @ 26 June 2007 - ( ) A guest post by Spencer Weart, in collaboration with Raymond T. Pierrehumbert The simple physics explanations for the greenhouse effect that you find on the internet are often quite wrong. These well-meaning errors can promote confusion about whether humanity is truly causing global warming by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Some people have been arguing that simple physics shows there is already so much CO2 in the air that its effect on infrared radiation is "saturated"— meaning that adding more gas can make scarcely any difference in how much radiation gets through the atmosphere, since all the radiation is already blocked. And besides, isn’t water vapor already blocking all the infrared rays that CO2 ever would? - See more at: realclimate.org