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: Ali Chen who wrote (330174)	3/24/2007 11:22:14 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1574864

"And you are showing your true intellectual capacity" Thank you. "You must be familiar with the concept that a correlation is not equal to causation, do you?" Sure. "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?" No. Is that your theory? Not a big Gaia fan, myself. "I don't disagree with this, except that the flooded field must appear first after retreat of glaciers, would you agree?" Reading problems I see. My thesis is not that it caused the end of the ice age. My thesis is that humans have been changing the composition of the atmosphere for millennia. Yet you want us to believe that we abruptly lost that power. "This "a bit over" of yours is a 200x factor in error. " Yawn. Let's look at some other data. This one, for example en.wikipedia.org You see that the trend is a peak, jitter, drop. Peak, jitter, drop. And here en.wikipedia.org Again. Peak, jitter, drop. And in every case, we've hit a peak, and we are in the jitter stage. Except there is one difference. en.wikipedia.org Note that the CO2 content of the air started to increase well above the norms since we started getting this latest ice age cycle. "Now the real question is to what extent this perturbation is comparable with natural jumps in CO2 during natural deglaciations." That is the point, they don't appear to be. As you know, determining the CO2 from ice cores isn't easy. And the further back they go, the less the accuracy is. Which is why the graphs tend to have a lot of noise for recent dates and the noise is decreased the further back you go. That is because the ice layers get thinner and thinner, hence acting as a filter. However, with that caveat, the present atmospheric CO2 concentration is higher than it has been in over 400k years. The peak appears to be around 300 ppm. We are at 380 and climbing. Is that certain? Can't be sure. It is certainly possible that there were excursions of a century or so above 300 ppm. It doesn't look likely, but a short, sharp impulse would be filtered out of ice cores. Now, as I have pointed out before, the doom and gloom isn't really justified. The carbon cycle seems capable of adjusting to higher CO2 releases, it just takes time. Slowing the rate of increase could yield great benefits. As the North America data shows, reforestation helps a lot, NA looks to be carbon neutral despite the tremendous increase in CO2 emissions. Lessening the pressure on forests, tree farms and the luxury of planting trees on most properties helps a lot. Or we could buy a few decades by building Benford's fresnel lens. I like the idea. Because, if it does turn out we are actually in a cooling cycle, we could fine tune for that.