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: RMF who wrote (787330)6/3/2014 9:03:22 AM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) of 1575981
 
It's more complicated than that ... it's not just enough to say CO2 is a GHG and we're putting more in the atmosphere. How powerful a GHG is it? Is it significant enough to matter? The models that predict catastrophe assume a powerful positive feedback effect, acknowledging that CO2 is only a trace gas and not powerful enough to warm the earth much on it's own. So the assumption is made that warming from CO2 increase will be magnified (about 4X) by other factors. Is that assumption valid? Could there be negative feedback effects?

Re warming, it's been warming since the Little Ice Age and that's a good thing ... how much of the warming of the past century is natural vs CO2 related? It's a guess at best.

Now, let me ask you, how come everyone allegedly worried about CO2 is also anti-nuclear power (an energy source that produces no CO2 at all)?
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