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 (312985)	11/28/2006 9:01:31 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572503

"as if CO2 emissions itself causes more CO2 emissions." But it can. There are carbon sinks that are larger than what is in the atmosphere today that are sensitive to climate change.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (312985)	11/28/2006 9:41:23 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572503

Mindmeld, you started to lose it when you brought up the "theory of compound interest," as if CO2 emissions itself causes more CO2 emissions. Unfortunately you are incorrect, not Mindmeld. The historical record indicates just that: positive feedback. Temps start rising, then CO2 starts rising, and temps keep rising. If you could tease the causes apart, it looks very much like some cyclical cause of lower amplitude, which is amplified by greenhouse gas. Note that the positive feedback saturates at some point. That is good. Unfortunately, with us spewing it into the atmosphere, the saturation part in the historical record provides no comfort for predicting the future, as I'm sure you can appreciate. I might note one important saturation mechanism which the anti-global warming, pro greenhouse crowd misses: Although CO2 is an "aerial fertilizer" for plants, and increased atmospheric concentrations of it will promote plant growth, increased temps can inhibit plant growth, and the temps cannot be a whole lot hotter than what we have now. It is worse in high humidity IIRC. Basically photosynthesis shuts down in the middle of hot humid days, so plant growth decreases.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (312985)	11/28/2006 10:02:21 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572503

Nope. My metaphor of compound interest was to explain why the RATE of increase is still increasing. That means that CO2 levels aren't just increasing, the rate of the increases are increasing. That is what acceleration means. This means that we are facing a hockey stick increase in CO2 levels. That isn't fanaticism, that is stating facts. Think about this. Cisco increased its stock price for years prior to 1996. The increases were roughly in line with its rate of growth. Then from 1996 through early 2000, the rate of increase in their stock price accelerated until the stock chart resembled a hockey stick. It was an exponential curve. With exponential curbes, the rate of increase is itself increasing. That is what is happening with CO2 levels. That should scare the hell out of anyone, especially when you begin to realize that there is nothing that is aimed at slowing that acceleration down, much less aimed at reducing CO2 levels. Look, here are the facts. Currently, CO2 levels are at 381 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere. In 1990, the CO2 levels were rising at the rate of 1.0 ppm per year. In 2005, the CO2 levels rose 2.6 ppm. heatisonline.org That means the rate of increase is itself increasing every year by about 0.1 ppm. At this rate of acceleration, CO2 levels will be the following: 2010 = 396 ppm 2020 = 433 ppm 2030 = 481 ppm 2040 = 539 ppm 2050 = 608 ppm What will that do to temperature? I don't know what the regression model looks like since I don't have a corresponding statistically valid sample of temperatures to correlate to CO2 levels. However, my guess is that we can expect some pretty hefty temperature increases. Could average global temperatures increase by 10 degrees? It's quite possible. Are any of you willing or even able to live with the consequences? I doubt folks in living on land near the Gulf of Mexico will be, since they will experience Hurricane Katrina's just about every year. Water shortages, oceanic acidity, increasing spread of disease from the proliferation of pests and mosquitos, and you name it. This will not be a pleasant first half of the century.