Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article ,
Retief wrote:
But if "net thermal effect" is what the comparison is all about, why
don't you compare it to something people can see and touch -- say, a
burning candle? "This is equivalent to XXX extra candles burning per
square mile of Earth's surface"... Oh, but then you wouldn't be able
to fold in the CO2 boogeyman...
That is, the response of CO2 to a shifting spectrum is different than
the other gases.
What do you mean by a "shifting spectrum" ?
The sun behaves approximately as a black body. If the sun increases
in temperature (and output), the spectrum shifts towards the blue (and
increased UV).
You're confusing intensity with temp. They are 2 different things.
You are saying CO2 is comparable to temperature, aren't you? If not then
your comment is unintelligible.
|