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: neolib who wrote (187847)	6/1/2006 1:31:59 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Dr. Lindzen' problem is that the issue we face is one of an abrupt short-term perturbation we are adding to the system. Which apparently has previously happened, according to the paleo-climatological record. And they were quickly followed by major temperature drops: elmhurst.edu chemistry.beloit.edu (click on the arrow for the slide presentation). One of the things I found puzzling in this graph was the relation to temp and dust concentrations 140,000 years ago and now.. At both points there seems to have been/be very low levels of dust concentrations during the temperature rise. Is there a correlation? One would think that atmospheric dust particles would be "event" related (volcanoes, meteors.. etc).. And since dust is one of the primary means of conveying nutrients to the oceans for phytoplanktonic growth, the correlation is even MORE interesting (at least, IMO). It seems that, if the date is credible, that when dust levels increased, CO2 levels DECREASED (not just the temperture from particles blocking the sun). I don't understand what correlation there could possibly be between increasing dust and decreasing CO2 levels. If anything, were the dust levels high enough to cool the earth would cause a decrease in plant life (ocean and land) and thus CO2 levels should increase. And if, as a theory, that dust was providing a feast for phytoplankton, then it might provide a logical deduction that there is a linkage between oceanic "anemia" and rising CO2 levels (or at least the inability to compensate for increases). The ocean could in fact deal with the total incremental carbon load over some thousands of years, but not over a few hundred. And how long will it take for the existing CO2 to come back to pre-1850 norms if we just completely stop using fossil fuels and other emitters of CO2?? Decades? Centuries? Eons? And if it's a long time, then the existing CO2 levels, if unabsorbable, would logically continue to exacerbate increasing temperatures as more and more water vapor finds its way into the atmosphere, right? Cumulative damage should result until such a point where the world is at 100% humidity EVERYWHERE (saturation point),right? So we are hitting a speed bump, and the real remaining science question is what the intermediate term result is. If we created the speed bump, don't we have an obligation to smooth it out, rather than waiting for nature to erode it naturally? Btw, your analogy was fine... and eloquently stated. And I'm enjoying the debate.. I'm learning quite a bit about an obviously controversial subject. Hawk