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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (31861)	6/7/2002 11:50:27 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 281500

<Thanks for the explanation of water's effect on temperature...but the conclusion is __________? Are the CO2 doomsters onto something or we don't know yet? > Nadine, the conclusion is that water is doing whatever it wants to do. We can only indirectly affect the hydrological processes by warming the place ever so slightly by burning hydrocarbons in great quantities. By making the place ever so slightly warmer, we can ever so slightly increase the evaporation rate which will increase the rainfall and snowfall rate, which the doomsters claim might precipitate an ice age. They are wrong. In fact, ice and snow fields are reducing somewhat, with glaciers retreating uphill over the last century [which is nothing to do with hydrocarbon production - the retreats started before people were having an effect]. The North Pole ice is thinner. There is no incipient ice-age. We need MORE snow, not less, to get an ice-age. The doomsters are plain wrong about that aspect. My theory is that we are preventing [if we are lucky] an ice age by restoring the CO2 atmosphere. Ice ages result from the stripping of life from the ecosphere and dumping it in coal, gas, oil and limestone deposits. The planet has been fizzling out. Hooray for people, restoring life. Most Greenies don't like people, saying there are too many of us and some extremists even think some suicide would be in order [they don't give a good example by doing the decent thing - they want others to be depopulated]. We have had half a century of prolific oil production [and coal and gas] and we are not succeeding in raising temperatures much at all if anything. The doomsters are now hoping for some non-linearity to bring in the projected runaway greenhouse effect, which is currently in a dead heat with the Second Coming, which is also promised one of these days. The doomsters are onto nothing. There's no ice age. There's no greenhouse warming to speak of. The plants and ocean are gobbling the CO2 almost as fast as we can produce it. The more we produce, the more they'll gobble. We have apparently raised CO2 levels quite a bit, but we'll find it harder and harder to increase the levels further. The conclusion is that we should worry about very rapid sea level rises from incoming space mountain splashdowns, not from some pathetic warming of seawater and some ice melting. We should worry about alpha male mania and lack of international government. It's not just rich people who are dying out. China is not exactly rich per capita but they are going to find their population dropping precipitously in 30 years following a couple of decades of one child per couple. India's production rate has been dropping rapidly too. Russia isn't rich, but the population is already dropping. Africa's population is in trouble with AIDS ravaging millions in a horrendous epidemic. Pakistan might get a large population reduction via nuclear fission. Mq