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: Hawkmoon who wrote (187806)	5/31/2006 3:22:51 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If this is correct, as seems to be the case, then exactly how do we focused upon this aspect of global warming? We can reduce all of the CO2 emissions that we want, but if solar activity causes additional evaporation of water, we're literally p*ssing up a rope. It's something that I'm going to have to follow up on. This has been known for a very long time, and was one of the major objections to the early proposal that CO2 might influence global temps. Early test of IR absorption showed that water seemed to get everything that CO2 would, so adding a little CO2 to the atmosphere would not affect things. Much later, more detailed testing done at high altitude pressures showed a different picture. CO2 in the upper atmosphere has a significant affect. IIRC, this was figured out 50 years ago or so. Just one of the many puzzles that have been solved along the way.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (187806)	5/31/2006 5:29:03 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Uh. Oh. Don't let this get around. Very embarrassing. We have luddites in the cabinet. Get the Raid. Get the boric acid. Stomp them suckers flat B4 the company gets here. Only 9999 minds to change now. Treasury Secretary Nominee Says Failure To Ratify Kyoto Undermines U.S. Competitiveness President Bush’s new nominee for Treasury Secretary, Goldman Sachs Chairman Henry M. Paulson Jr., not only endorses the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse emissions, but argues that the United States’ failure to enact Kyoto undermines the competitiveness of U.S. companies. Here’s a statement from the Nature Conservancy, where Paulson serves as chairman of the board: The Kyoto Protocol is a key first step to help slow the onslaught of global warming and benefit conservation efforts…Until the United States passes its own limits on global warming emissions, innovative companies based here will lose out on opportunities to sell reduced emission credits to companies complying with the Kyoto Protocol overseas. Additionally, without enacting our own emission limits, U.S. companies will lose ground to their competitors in Europe, Canada, Japan, and other countries participating in the Protocol who are developing clean technologies. Goldman Sachs, under Paulson’s leadership, argued that the danger from global warming is imminent and requires “urgent” action by government to reduce emissions: [C]limate change is one of the most significant environmental challenges of the 21st century and is linked to other important issues such as economic growth and development… Goldman Sachs is very concerned by the threat to our natural environment, to humans and to the economy presented by climate change and believes that it requires the urgent attention of and action by governments, business, consumers and civil society to curb greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, Paulson’s nomination is strongly opposed by a coalition right-wing groups seeking to cast doubt on climate science, such as the National Center for Public Policy Research, describing Paulson as “diametrically opposed to the positions of [the Bush] Administration.” thinkprogress.org

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (187806)	5/31/2006 5:34:33 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

6 Apr 2005 Water vapour: feedback or forcing? Filed under: Climate Science Greenhouse gases Climate modelling FAQ— gavin @ 7:51 pm Whenever three or more contrarians are gathered together, one will inevitably claim that water vapour is being unjustly neglected by 'IPCC' scientists. "Why isn't water vapour acknowledged as a greenhouse gas?", "Why does anyone even care about the other greenhouse gases since water vapour is 98% of the effect?", "Why isn't water vapour included in climate models?", "Why isn't included on the forcings bar charts?" etc. Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models, but it is a feedback and not a forcing. From personal experience, I am aware that these distinctions are not clear to many, and so here is a more in-depth response (see also this other attempt). realclimate.org