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: combjelly who wrote (316725)	12/21/2006 5:35:13 AM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575939

The easiest and most efficient way to halt global warming is to ignite a few nukes every year. Not too many, because then we all need to ski to the office (nuclear winter), but just a few. This could also be commercialized: Invite NK, Iran, Israel and other aspiring nuke nations to test their fireworks against a small fee. The benefits of that being, that we deplete their inventories. A true double whammy. Small fee? We determine what "small" is here. Taro

To: combjelly who wrote (316725)	12/27/2006 5:25:12 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575939

Benford's fresnel lens, for example. Seeding iron ions in the Antarctic Sea. Sun blocking aerosols. None of these help much in a scenario of every increasing CO2 emissions. But in a regime where emissions are stabilized, they can help. Ever increasing CO2 levels isn't likely. There are some negative feed back loops. And the really wacky extreme cases of "ever increasing CO2 levels" do start to have results like Ted's end of civilization claims, which would certainly decrease CO2 emissions. Counter measures can induce a cooling effect that might be greater then the warming effect, even if you do continue to increase CO2, unless you believe in very strong positive feedback loops from CO2 emissions, and in particular ones that wouldn't be mitigated even if the temperature change is greatly moderated by the counter measures. But to say that we can't afford to go back to 280 ppm, so it isn't worth doing anything at all is pretty lame. Perhaps. It also isn't something I said.