Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: enginer who wrote (134865)	3/24/2001 8:08:13 AM
From: Scumbria	Respond to of 1570543

engine, Why are you taking issue with >90% of the climatologists in the world? Are you qualified to do so? Scumbria

To: enginer who wrote (134865)	3/24/2001 8:49:47 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570543

"The only correlation with global warming is solar activity and our climb out of the unusually cool period known as the Little Ice age." Global warming is not an easy thing to measure. But there is no question that CO2 levels have, and are increasing, especially in the past couple of centuries. CO2, and several other gasses, are know to be able to absorb heavily in the infra-red. Since they do this, there are suspected in being instrumental in raising climatic temperatures higher than they would be otherwise. But, and this is a big point, there are also natural variations in climate. The Little Ice Age is a good example of this on recent record. Ok, I have gone over basic facts here, what is my point? The point is that global climate is a dynamically stable entity. It is large and complex and can only be described in terms of chaos theory. So here is a large, complex and only dimly understood system and we are throwing large amounts of a chemical that could quite likely be instrumental in determining the balance into the air. Doesn't sound smart to me. When objections are raised, there are those that point out that we have no rock solid proof that it is a problem, many knowing full well that the system is not understood well enough to make anything but crude models. In demanding absolute proof it just guarantees that by the time there is proof, it will be too late to do anything about it. It is like there is an open bear trap on the ground. Someone is gently jostling the trigger with their foot, pointing out there is no proof that it is dangerous, everything has been going well so far... There are large carbon sinks in the oceans and in bogs that can dump an enormous amount of CO2 (there is roughly twice as much carbon tied up in these areas than is in the atmosphere) into the atmosphere if conditions change. In addition, there are large amounts of a more potent greenhouse gas, methane, in those areas that could be released by, you guessed it, changing the energy balance. So does it make sense to dick around with this? As far as rising sea level, that article is nonsense. Come on, a single datum is enough to contradict a huge pile of other data? Think about this. Average global temperatures have risen a couple of degrees C over the past century for whatever reason. Now water when warmed expands. A couple of degrees C would only cause the water to expand a very small percentage, but when you factor in the average depth of the oceans is measured in kilometers... Well, do the math.

To: enginer who wrote (134865)	3/24/2001 6:46:19 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570543

The only correlation with global warming is solar activity and our climb out of the unusually cool period known as the Little Ice age. microtech.com.au and co2science.org It was actually warmer during the medieval maximum, and the jury is out as to where the oceans are really rising or falling: news.bbc.co.uk; Thanks for the links provided. First, let me say that when I first heard about La Niña and El Niño in the mid 80's, the scientists said that they were climatic events that were prompted by shifts in the ocean currents and occurred roughly every twenty years. That had been the experienced frequency up til then. During the late 80's and the 90's, however, these climatic events began to occur with much greater frequency on the West coast, almost alternating from one year to the next. Now this latest paper reports that they occur irregularly every 2 to 7 years [not twenty], and are motivated by sunspots. My question then becomes why the change in frequency of these events if its sunspots that are the cause? After all, we have always had sunspots. Yes, I know that its more complicated then just having sunspots....they have to be at juxtaposed just so to activities here on earth. But something just doesn't add up. And to show the seriousness of this issue, El Niña once again has hit the West coast and is helping to contribute to the energy problem in CA. This is the 3rd time in 10 years. Again I ask, why is everything lining up so that these events are occurring more frequently? As for CO2, its a part of the natural cycle of things. Up until the 20th century, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were fairly constant. That changed in the 20th century and in some places the level of CO2 has increased dramatically. We have learned that whenever we, Man, change the environment there are unexpected and usually, not beneficial repercussions. Why should this be any different? Re the explorer who allegedly left a mark on some rocks indicating the mean sea level in 1841. Are we to believe his mark, or our own eyes when we see glaciers in retreat at the two poles, when we view the hole in the ice that has opened up at the top of the arctic circle or when we watch islanders put up storm walls in a desperate and usually futile attempt to reduce the loss of their island's land mass to the rising seas? Maybe its me, but it would appear these current events make the explorer's mark an anomaly. ted