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.

Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: A.J. Mullen who wrote (7421)	3/7/2006 1:02:56 AM
From: DaYooper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12247

This debate can go round and round. The only thing certain is that the last decade has been the warmest of the last century. There are no accurate records for previous centuries. Some scientists will make the case that recent warming is caused by our fuel burning while others will point out that little is known of the earth's longer term climate cycles. I live on Lake Michigan which has a fluctuating water level. The lake hit an historic high in 1986 and I recall environmentalists pointing to our effect on the environment. (the polar icecaps melting if i recall correctly) Now, twenty years later, the lake is near it's historic low and again the environmentalists want to blame mankind for it. Without knowing the long term data for climate and lake levels cycles these debates are endless and without conclusion.

To: A.J. Mullen who wrote (7421)	3/7/2006 6:03:45 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 12247

Ashley, I thought climate change was supposed to do something serious: <There are three specific events that these scientists describe as especially worrisome and potentially imminent, although the time frames are a matter of dispute: widespread coral bleaching that could damage the world's fisheries within three decades; dramatic sea level rise by the end of the century that would take tens of thousands of years to reverse; and, within 200 years, a shutdown of the ocean current that moderates temperatures in northern Europe.> The world's fisheries are already depleted and aquaculture is increasingly important, just as deer hunting gave way to sheep farming [which provided wool as well as meat]. While I have some sympathy with coral, some of them are downright nasty and good riddance to them. Maybe coral could live somewhere else. I suppose young corals go exploring in their young and carefree days and will find somewhere nice to live, leaving the old colonies to fizzle out, like a human ghost town once the gold is depleted. Snapper in New Zealand don't eat coral, so I don't see why coral in trouble is trouble for the fish. Maybe some coral reef fish wouldn't like it. I don't know that they matter very much. I wonder how much of a problem white coral is becoming. Dramatic sea level rise is apparently something like a couple of metres. Which seems trivial to me over a period of 90 years. Economic life cycles of buildings and roads and sewers etc are a lot less than that. 20 years is a more normal time for return on investment. Maybe 50 years for a few things. Not many. People are an exception, with returns on investment going right up to 80 years these days. But we can move out of the way of rising water. People can just build their next building a bit further above sea level. Anyway, with a tsunami coming long before 2100, the sea level rise they should worry about has got nothing to do with global warming and CO2. Already, I have moved to about 80 metres above sea level, which should be reasonably safe. Others can do the same over the next century. If they choose not to, that's their problem, not mine. If Europe gets cold because of the Gulf Stream stopping, they could move to Africa. Or wear woolly jackets. Canada functions just fine and it's seriously cold there. Personally, I think another glaciation is a much bigger worry than coral, 2 metres of higher tide and a cooler Europe. A kilometre of snow on top of Berlin will be a LOT worse than a few degrees colder [or warmer, depending on which the greenhouse effect will cause - probably both in the tradition of Greenie doomster claims]. Earth has been dying for a billion years as limestone and other graveyard deposits of carbon have depleted the atmosphere, causing us to near the time of the final BIG FREEZE when a total glaciation ends it all. Earth is not in balance and never was. It has always been cooling, crystallizing and freezing. Like the proverbial frog in the boiling water not noticing that it was getting hotter, Earth is getting colder. One day it'll be too late and we'll flip over the final cusp into a small, white planet circling Sol. Even volcanic action won't reverse it. Ablation and continued snow deposition will keep it white. Ash will melt into the snow whenever it's exposed to sun and be covered by subsequent snowfalls. Mqurice