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: John Hayman who wrote (7424)	3/7/2006 12:19:12 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12247

The honest answer to global warming is that it is undoubtedly happening in the Northern Hemisphere but that we simply do not yet have the ability to distinguish between human and natural causes. The issue is so complex that I doubt even a rough answer can be found. Regardless of what anyone thinks about the causes of global warming, energy conservation and the search for alternative sources of energy are absolutely necessary for political reasons. We simply cannot remain beholden to lunatics in the Middle East for our energy needs. Nuclear power is a no brainer, except to the moonbats on the far left. Ethanol is a no brainer. It's all there, we're just not going after it. But we will.

To: John Hayman who wrote (7424)	3/7/2006 6:15:06 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 12247

<5) And why hasn't climate warmed, when theory clearly expects this to happen? The answer must be that even our best current models of the atmosphere are incomplete and leave out important features. Only in the last few years have modelers started to include ocean currents, atmospheric aerosol particles and dust into climate models. Most now suspect that clouds are the reason why models and observations do not agree.> It was recently reported that forests, contrary to expectations, are not greenhouse sinks, but in fact are greenhouse producers because of their methane production. Which is annoying for New Zealand which thought their forests would earn loads of carbon credits for good behaviour. Now, maybe we are going to be punished for having forests which produce methane, which is highly greenhousish. With deforestation around the world over millennia and more so in the last 150 years [New Zealand was stripped in that time to make farms], maybe there has been a lot less methane produced so contrary to expectations, there has been cooling. Forests have been mown down over the last couple of decades and that has been a great worry for Greenies, not to mention all the creatures living there. They didn't include clouds? Are they crazy? <Most now suspect that clouds are the reason why models and observations do not agree. > I included clouds in my climate modelling way back in 1987. Mqurice