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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (310835)	11/16/2006 5:12:01 AM
From: Alighieri	Respond to of 1576926

What happens after we cross said "point-of-no-return"? "The Day After Tomorrow"? Funny thing is that Soros will probably profit from that as well. You are making some pretty irrational arguments you know. Gore saying that global warming can't be reversed if we don't do something and your bombast are quite a contrast. This election has got you into a tailspin and the Dems aren't even sworn in yet. What will you say in January? Al

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (310835)	11/16/2006 8:19:10 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576926

"What happens after we cross said "point-of-no-return"? "The Day After Tomorrow"?" Only if the resulting dislocations trigger a nuclear war. What do you think "point of no return" means? Most people use it to mean we can no longer reverse course. There are several carbon sinks which are effected by global warming. One is the bogs that dot the world. There is a lot of carbon tied up in these bogs, and a bog is only stable as long as it is wet. If it dries out, that means the carbon load is subject to oxidation. So changing weather patterns is a huge concern. Other carbon sinks include the rain forests, arctic tundra, ocean bottom water and the chlathrates. All of which are sensitive to changing weather patterns and/or warming. Passing the PONR means that we have triggered a climate change. What exactly that means is a good question. Weather, and hence climate, is a chaotic system. Predicting the strange attractors is a non-trivial issue. Suffice it to say, it would be different. That is enough, because different is bad on so many levels. To pick one, all of our major food crops are dependent on lowest, mean and peak temperature during the growing season with a given number of sun hours during the season for optimal production. If you change those temperatures, you impact your food production unless you can also change the inclination of the Earth in its orbit. Given that isn't particularly likely, the reality is that we have to re-breed all the crops. In the US, we can probably afford to increase the acreage under cultivation to get through the crisis. Most areas of the world can't. So global famines are very possible. And that means refugees. And large number of refugees means wars.