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 (330100)	3/24/2007 12:55:24 AM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574849

"Tsk. Now you slip deeper into intellectual dishonesty. Things have changed in the last 20,000 years. Humans have reshaped entire ecosystems." And you are showing your true intellectual capacity. You must be familiar with the concept that a correlation is not equal to causation, do you? Has it ever occur to you that there might be a reversed possibility, that the natural transition to warmer climate helped the survivors of Homo Sapience species to proliferate after all the harsh ice ages were over? "Methane concentrations went up after humans learned to grow rice in flooded fields. For good or ill, we are a factor in what happens to the environment." I don't disagree with this, except that the flooded field must appear first after retreat of glaciers, would you agree? But we are a factor, see below. "And if you look at the data, we were in that slow drift into an ice age. But that abruptly stopped and reversed a bit over 100 years ago." Just like it never happen before, so it must be a special cause this time, right? :-) :-) :-) And I would advise you to be more careful with those numbers, with sense of them, not just as your previous "typically less than 1% ash in coals". If _you_ look at the data, say, earthobservatory.nasa.gov you might find out that the sliding trend have been reversed about 20,000 years ago, not "a bit over 100 years" as you just stated. This "a bit over" of yours is a 200x factor in error. Ability to think coherently does not seem to be a good characterization of the People of Climatology and their followers. They even cannot put forth an argument for their obvious strong point. Remember how people liked to waive recent instrumental records of growing CO2, and thought that it is a solid proof of unprecedented growth, the argument that can be easily refuted. Now let me help you out here, since I haven't seen this argument before. Why the growth of CO2 seems to be unprecedented and rapid? It is simple. The Earth's biosphere worked long millennia and very hard to absorb excess of CO2 from atmosphere, and formed deposits of fossil ores over a period of half a billion years. Then homo sapience inhabited the Earth, and burned substantial amount (you tell me how much, worldwide) of those historical deposits just in a bit over two short centuries, almost instantly releasing the whole old CO2 back. The two time scales are really incompatible in climatological terms, which can qualify this act of humans as a biggest ecological perturbation in the history of Earth. Now the real question is to what extent this perturbation is comparable with natural jumps in CO2 during natural deglaciations. Therefore, a realistic global nonlinear model of glacial-interglacial oscillations must be of prime importance, something which People of Climatology do not understand and continue to play with short-sighted linear approximations. - Ali