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: combjelly who wrote (134898)	3/25/2001 2:13:31 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570452

What do you consider to be "firmly established"? If the satellite temperature readings agreed with the ground readings that might be a start. Also any warming trend from current conditions should be easier to detect because their are now more sensors and better records then there where 100 years ago. The problem is it might take 50 or 100 years of new data (or a more extreme spike lasting at least a couple of decades) to be more sure. The trillions of dollars is something to be disputed. There are some offsetting things that can be done, i.e. encouraging planting of trees, alternates to slash and burn in tropical regions and possible iron enrichment in polar oceans. These things I don't have a problem with. However I would probably only experiment with the iron enrichment for now. It has the potential to act more quickly then most other ideas if we need it later but I'm not sure, and I'm not sure that anyone is sure of the potential negative consequences. I think this (like the overall issue) needs to be studied more. However the trillions of dollars deals specifically with reducing CO2 emissions. The Kyoto treaty (and me saying it was a bad idea was what started this argument) doesn't allow for counting anything but CO2 reductions. Edit - As far as the sinks of greenhouse gases thats part of the "dimly understood" area that I am talking about. The ocean might just get more disolved CO2 as we emit more, counteracting any warming effect, if temperatures do rise more clouds could be formed which would reflect more heat. For that matter global warming may be beneficial as long as it doesn't happen to fast or go to far, and just a couple of decades ago many people were worried that we would go into a new ice age. Its still possible that they where right and that CO2 emissions are the only thing preventing it. However I am not against taking any steps to combat the posibility of global warming. I think we should take any step that is not too expensive or doesn't involve draconian government controls and that can be easily reversed if we find out we were wrong about global warming. I also think that nuclear energy should be a bigger part of our future then it appears it is going to be both because it doesn't release CO2 and because it doesn't burn up our supply of fossil feuls. Tim