SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum
GLD 386.47-0.2%Dec 5 4:00 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Moominoid who wrote (22154)9/8/2007 9:29:27 PM
From: Maurice Winn  Read Replies (1) of 218199
 
Moom, at least we are dickering over precisely the right amount of CO2 which is desirable, rather than the principles and mechanisms of what's happening.

Given the threat of a return to glaciation, due last century [give or take a year or two], and given the history of CO2 at much higher levels than when the 20th century began, I far prefer to have a higher rather than lower level, on the precautionary principle of staying well away from cliff edges.

The danger from a warmer climate is that sea levels will rise slightly over a century and people will need to slightly adjust their agricultural processes because of variations in local conditions.

The danger from a return to glaciation is something that would happen [in Mq's theory developed in 1987] over a period of less than a decade and probably about three years would confirm the start as snow cover permafrost extends and a feedback loop of reflection of incoming light goes critical.

If the area of previous glaciations is considered, and the effect on people living there and elsewhere, it would be a very bad thing to deal with.

The normal state of Earth for a long time has been ice age. Staying out of it is a good idea.

Mqurice
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext