SI
SI
discoversearch

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: combjelly who wrote (312803)11/28/2006 12:16:56 PM
From: neolib  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572366
 
It is pretty clear from the periodicity of the glacial cycles that something other than CO2 is the trigger. I'd guess astronomical, but it might be geophysical as well. Once started, it is hard to ignore the greenhouse feedback component given that we know the underlying physical mechanism of heat trapping. What is really telling is that most of the anti-global warming sites I've read harp on the temp-CO2 lag, but don't discuss the heat trapping in much detail. It is useful to ignore the obvious at times.

This time around the trigger is pretty well known as well. It is not just a trigger either, but a nicely sustained and quite rapid step function (might be only an impulse function if we get our act together) when viewed on the historical timescale.



To: combjelly who wrote (312803)11/28/2006 12:40:08 PM
From: Taro  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572366
 
That's exactly what I meant. Don't know what you thunk I was thinking of, but this is the issue. Maybe you simplified it too much and reduced it to what absorbs IR more or less like CO2, H2O (humidity, steam) et al.

The issue ain't that simple.

Correlation? Yes! Causality? Maybe.

Taro


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News