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: Maurice Winn who wrote (49198)	5/1/2004 7:10:41 PM
From: Moominoid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

If you read the paper you'll see we would be deep in an Ice Age by now were it not for all our methane (rice and cattle primarily) and carbon dioxide (mainly land clearing and burning forests for wildlife management (see prehistory of Australia)) emissions. The problem is we are well adapted to this interglacial style climate or something close to it. A 10-20m higher sea level for a 3C warming (and more than 60m in the case of extreme warming that melts all the ice in Antarctica) does not sound like a great idea to me.... the last glaciation ended on cue with the ongoing Milankovich orbital cycle... We now understand that interglacials were not long warm periods... most of the last million plus years has been ice age.... we already began to abolish nature thousands of years ago, now why would we want to screw up and go back to the Cretaceous or whenever? (the phrase "ecological sustainable development" as used in Australia is just an oxymoron...)