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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (21182)	6/10/2017 10:32:52 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 356202

I don't know who made this point but if you take a room 20x20x10 and strike a march in it, you will affect the co2 concentration the equivalent of a billion vehicles. It just isn't significant at these levels. This is a nonsense example. None of the parameters are quantified. Is this instantaneous? That would be stupid because the automobiles on Earth don't just run for a few milliseconds and stop. Does this example include the match burning out? What percentage of those vehicles are starting during this time? And that even assumes the analogy is even correct, you have a habit of referencing things that are off by orders of magnitude. Which sort of skews the results. The bigger point is we really don't have enough information to know the extent to which CO2 is affecting temperatures. We just don't. Which, of course, it wrong. You said it which pretty much de facto makes it wrong, but... We know the CO2 concentration. We know the volume of the atmosphere. We know the albedo of the Earth. We know the diameter of the Earth. We know the insolation. The amount of energy trapped can be calculated from that information. Unless you want to claim the physics is wrong, that is. So the extent to which CO2 is affecting the total energy balance is a matter of simple calculation. Now, what can be argued is what the energy balance is. How much the oceans absorb or how much gets circulated and to where. That is what the models attempt to show and that is what Dyson is talking about. But the effect of CO2 is indisputable. And can and has been calculated. So your claims about CO2 show a great deal of ignorance. Which is sort of your MO.