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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Moominoid who wrote (32601)	4/28/2003 9:51:31 PM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

We are living through a brief warm time in an overall cold times. Just a little ripple super-imposed to overall the curve which it is on its lows. The time spans of millions of years put the right perspective to the whole global warming issue: Measuring temperatures (and the early temp. measurements are very, very inaccurate to be a guide as compared with today's accurate measurements) over a 100 year or so it is not a guide if it is going up or down. Lets make precise measurements for 200 years and see what it shows. In 200 years earth's population would most likely be in a steep down trend and CO2 emissions dropping down accordingly. Then scientists will take this into consideration and would need another 200 years of measurements to make a good a assumption. By them Earth will be down to perhaps 1 billion human beings and so it goes...

To: Moominoid who wrote (32601)	4/28/2003 10:19:34 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

David, people adapt really quickly. In 100 years, Auckland has changed hugely. If the tide had been rising or other major climatic events happening, people would have adapted without economic damage. When they think, "Where shall I invest $100 million to build a building, establish a business and generally make a commitment?" they are thinking in terms of 20 years, not a century. With some industries, such as tree growing, they think in terms of 50 years. If the tide is rising, they'll decide to build their stuff enough metres above sea level to avoid gradual rises, and if they are wise, the much more important sudden tsunamis which are caused by incoming space objects. Those tsunamis are likely anytime from now onwards, with equal probability. The tide rises from greenhouse effects are totally trivial compared with the risk from such tsunamis. A warning that we all have to move uphill over the next 50 years wouldn't make a huge difference to property prices in downtown Auckland. Those right on the water's edge would perhaps drop slightly for a few years. New buildings would be built uphill. Rents in low level buildings would rise as people prefer to stay where they are. So the price of the buildings wouldn't drop dramatically. People might even build new ones in the planned wet-zone, to make a profit over the next 30 years before flooding gets under way. The theoretical climatic changes are so trivial, I'm surprised anyone worries, even if they are true. Worrying about tsunamis is more realistic. Tunguska type comets psi.edu over water would make quite a wave. Mqurice