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 : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (66366)	7/19/2006 9:19:34 AM
From: yard_man	Respond to of 110194

[my last post here re global warming -- we can start another thread or migrate the discussion if anyone is interested ...] Incentives are not a cure-all ... supppose every wants to have 20 lbs of gold in their basement -- government could give tax breaks to miners -- subsidize mining and repeal all environmental laws -- everyone still can't have 20lbs of gold in their basement -- I know it is a stupid example -- but it underscores the point. Financial incentives simply don't exist that can remove our dependence on coal for electricity ... >>Due to the thermal inertia of the earth's oceans and slow responses of other indirect effects, the Earth's current climate is not in equilibrium with the forcing imposed by increased greenhouse gases. Climate commitment studies indicate that, even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at present day levels, a further warming of perhaps 0.5 °C to 1.0 °C (0.9–1.8 °F) would still occur.<< I doubt the practicality of measures that would stabilize CO2 at current levels ceteris parabis, i.e. if there are no unforseen mitigating natural effects that come into play and help. BTW: here's wikki's Global Warming entry en.wikipedia.org notice how the graphs are made -- the first one shows averaged graphs with a recent one that isn't average -- there is much bias even in how the data are presented. They should present unccertainty bands for the historical CO2 levels, imo. In that article it said He can migrate through the ice and yet Deuterium levels are used to figure out temperatures -- I think ice cores must be the primary source for BOTH graphs -- that is not good, imo. I used to be in regulation -- electric utilities and sat through rate cases where the 30 yr historical record of temperature at 3 or 4 measuring stations were debated -- how the temperature data should be adjusted for this or that -- the adjustments were significant -- sometimes more than a couple or 3 degrees as this was important to heasting degree days and cooling degree days. Said all that to say this -- Wikki says 0.75 degree C rise since 1900 -- that's a pretty small variation. They'll quote uncertainty in their estimates of future changes -- but don't quote any for the historical numbers. Why?? Can I tell you what I find amazing -- if the CO2 graph is correct -- that concentrations are twice what have been seen in prior periods and this is the effect -- then I am amazed at how minor the overall effect is?? I wonder to what cause they are attributing to the steep cyclical drops on that graph -- this may sound crazy, but some Russians are predicting global cooling ...