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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck who wrote (201324)	8/11/2017 3:07:29 PM
From: weatherguru	8 Recommendations Recommended By arno DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck Investor Clouseau isopatch locogringo and 3 more members Respond to of 224718

He's got nothing! Two big things that global-warmers can't discuss are this: 1) there's no upper-tropospheric hot spot in the tropics, and 2) CO2 only absorbs 12-17 microns in the infrared band. Regarding the latter, you have to drop below 0C to lengthen infrared radiation to 12 microns...the average temperature of Earth (~15C) corresponds to an infrared wavelength of 10 microns. CO2 doesn't absorb at 10 microns, but H2O does. I sit in Florida, and CO2 does nothing except take part on photosynthesis, while H2O is at 30,000 ppm plus or minus 10,000 ppm. Anyways, that's why the poles warm faster than the midlatitudes and tropics in climate models, since CO2 only absorbs infrared at below 0C. However, does observed polar temperatures correlate with increasing CO2? No, from 1940-1970's Arctic temperatures dropped during a time CO2 was rising rapidly. Now the Arctic has warmed since late 1970's, however, Antarctica cooled from 1980 to early 2010's. So what gives? CO2 only works in one of the poles? 30-years would be long enough for CO2 to show up if it had any influence, but it doesn't. In the meantime, I enjoy reading how libs say that climate skeptics are 'uneducated'. LOL!