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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1110356)	1/14/2019 11:32:40 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571141

Well, as said, show me an error and I will ask for it to be corrected. Meanwhile, have a look at this experiment. youtube.com What do you think would happen if the Carbon Dioxide bottle was replaced with a steam generator? Or if the just adjusted the relative humidity from 0 percent up to 100%. Why wasnt that experiement shown as well?? Is the narrator trying to cook the books? i.e. Did the author do that experiment to see which was the more powerful greenhouse gas... Water or Carbon Dioxide? It's apparatus like that is used to measure the absorption coefficient for a gas versus the light wavelength. With clouds, visible light is reflected back too, hence they are opaque. You have seen the diagram below before. Are there any errors in it? Do you have a different graph from some other source... They all look the same to me... the ones I have checked so far. I have linked Thomas Watsons figure below. ... It has both Water and CO2 profiles stacked onto one and another. I checked elsewhere though, they do seem correct. Message 31964999 So do you see that Water Vapour has a much more opaque profile to nearly all IR frequencies as opposed to CO2 ? The calculations given are derived from the amount of material in the atmosphere. The fact is the figures given are replicated by many independent sources. It's not stuff that can be swept under the carpet. example: "Utilizing the IPCC’s own figures and models (from the 4th report), water vapour’s proportional contribution to the total planetary greenhouse effect reaches a dominating 96%. In contrast, CO2’s proportional radiative forcing contribution to the greenhouse effect is just* 2.7% regardless of the CO2 concentration level.*" http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/24/new-paper-attributes-24-of-temperature-changes-to-co2-ignores-dominance-of-water-vapour-clouds/