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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (12870)	5/22/2007 11:04:16 PM
From: Land Shark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

>Historically, I think CO2 has followed climate change not driven it. Wrong

To: Brumar89 who wrote (12870)	5/23/2007 9:30:41 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

There are a number of problems with various of your statements: I also concluded there wasn't a chance in hell that people would stop using fossil fuels regardless of the environmental effect. Since humans also live in the environment, they take notice when it effects them, even if your point is that humans would not change to save anything else. You might note that people have actually done quite a bit to cleanup various problems we have caused, such as air and water pollution. When the river flowing past Detriot actually caught on fire, things change. Turns out CO2 is a pretty minor greenhouse gas - if you double it, its still pretty minor. Water vapor is much more significant. You could read up on why the two are different. No magic is involved. For the past couple million years the earth has been in a period of recurring ice ages, with brief warm interglacial periods - the most recent one of which human civilization has arisen in. So if we could raise the earths temperature a bit, it might be a good thing in the long run. Cause in the long run, most of North America is eventually going to go back to glaciers and tundra. The problem is a complete lack of placing things in correct time scales. If we burned all the fossil fuels over the millions of years they were deposited in it would be zero problem. Unfortunately, we are burning them in a few hundred years. It does not even help for the next ice age. All we will accomplish is a very high temp spike that is or relatvely short duration, viewed on a geologic scale. You need to get your scales correct. Shorter range, sunspots and other solar cyclical changes seem to be the main climate drivers. Historically, I think CO2 has followed climate change not driven it. Read up on sunspots. That is an excellent example of denier thought processs. Scientists are interested in the sunspot issue, but no definitive results have emerged. Studies go one way and the other on that. The actual measured energy difference is very small. So there are alternate theories about cosmic rays effects, etc. But nothing significant has been shown yet. Meanwhile much more is understood about the CO2 effect and their magnitude. Yet you choose to ignore the one for which we have good data, and cling to a hopeful alternative which looks much more dubious. Why the hell to people do that?