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.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: d[-_-]b who wrote (391358)6/16/2008 3:44:00 PM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (2) of 1575780
 
"What of it - you're implication is co2?"

It isn't my implication. It is the consensus of scientists in that field. You know, the experts. They point to a considerable increase in volcanism which led to the temp. spike. Ocean temps. got high enough that ocean transport shut down.

"The point that seems to have eluded you is the temps and co2 levels are not linked and have both wandered all over the map (so to speak) over the planets life without our help."

Sigh.

Here is a couple of points you fail to consider. For one, your thesis requires that CO2 doesn't absorb in the infrared. It does. There was a pretty good demonstration of that on a recent episode of Mythbusters. The young scientist episode. Worth watching.

Now, with higher average temps., that would mean more water vapor in the air. That means there is a greater opportunity for cloud cover. And that means a greater albedo. Which reduces the opportunity for the CO2 to absorb the infrared.

If we look at the more recent record, you can see where the end of the Little Ice Age, the rise in temperatures and the increase in CO2 level all coincide with the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. Now, it could be just a liberal conspiracy. But...

"We are supposedly due for the next ice age and if higher co2 avoids or delays that I'm all for it - rather be too warm than too cool."

Well, if you look at the temp. graphs over the past few million years, you see signs that we should be on a downward trend. And, we were until the Industrial Revolution. So some output of CO2 is a good thing. The problem is that we are increasing our output at an exponential rate. So we are greatly outstripping the natural mechanisms for sequestering CO2. All we really need to do is decrease our rate of increase to let the increase in biomass and other mechanisms to catch up.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News