Ride the Tiger with CD Message Board

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Ride the Tiger with CD

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Land Shark who wrote (162390)	6/3/2009 12:47:56 PM
From: E. Charters	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) of 313106

Actually not true. Cycles of warming have exceeded present day by many times. (Younger Dryas). CO2 always rises at that time. CO2 appears to follow warming and not vice versa, which can be explained easily by the warm pop demo. The MIT scientists who are dissenters have a very well developed theory tying warming into sun cycles, also with causative reasoning and others have noted that the whole idea of changing relative humidity at height was not taken into account by climatic models. Relative radiation outwards increases with changes in rel. humid. to adjust the model such that the temperature with increased WV in the air should actually drop. It is interesting that theorists were propounding that nuclear winters and ice ages follow high dust and other absorptive systems that reflect radiation outwards, not warming. The pure greenhouse model of a very dense vapour in the upper atmosphere trapping radiation does not actually work in planetary practice. The dense clouds of Venus trap planetary heat that is internally generated, of which the earth has very little. And to put it in perspective, the atmosphere of Venus is 97% CO2 with sulfuric acid. The earth is 387 PPM CO2. Big difference. It is doubtful that the CO2 in earth practically constant for 3 billion years, has much to do with atmospheric temperature other than act as a marker of the general trend. The buffering sinks of CO2 are practically infinite (biological absorbers), as there is no chemical balance established per se. As such the CO2 levels can go out of whack in long trends for 100's of years without a need for cause. Arrhenius knew this. So far his models lack absolute veracity that is needed to be sure that CO2 and atmospheric warming is a hammer nail at these trace levels. If it were true that CO2 caused a steady increase in heat due to its presence over a certain base level, then once that level were exceeded there would be a compounding effect that would show itself in a few years. The rise would be geometric and inexorable. The effect if it exists at all must be very miniscule to exist. It is almost inconceivable in any chemical system that such a magical compounding amount occurs at a specific level of CO2 given that the absorbers have such large capacity and are so slow in extraction. Obviously all the biological absorbers and the sea and atmospheric temperature itself must interact in a complex cyclical way with CO2 levels. Adding a snowball effect to that of a level of CO2 above a certain limit sounds like it would have got out of whack far too easily during some volcanically active era. Mythbusters is just about to stamp "busted" on this one. But we do see a correlation with increased CO2 and increased temperature in a rather linear way. This could be CO2 being wagged by the temperature dog. This can easily be demonstrated. This is not obviously geometric which we would expect with a system with the amount of feedback they are saying CO2 should have. So is it cause effect or isn't it? It takes a lot more study to say. EC<:-}

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next