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.

Biotech / Medical : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (23840)	5/29/2007 4:18:07 PM
From: Mike McFarland	Respond to of 52153

The current warming trend is probably partly due to anthropogenic forcing (mostly CO2 emmisions) and partly some natural trend in the current interglacial (mostly solar irradiance). Whether it is 80/20 or 50/50, the warming is surely good for a few degrees C and at least several hundred years of warmth. Maybe thousands of years, but certainly not for tens of thousands of years before the ice returns (small consolation, ha). In any event, now lets say that 5 to 10 billion humans inhabit the planet for the next several hundred years. A good guess unless there is a plague. I think most of these people will never have access to cheap nuclear power, coal yes, oil too. The US may go nuclear, Europe and Japan are ahead of us. But India and China, probably not. And certainly not Africa. Now a show of hands. Who thinks the planetary fossil fuel resource is NOT going to be depleted over the next several hundred years? Those seem to me the important variables. Not so much what gets the greater share of the blame. CO2 is the best guess of course. And finally, some countries will see a net benefit anyway. Canada, Russia, the Scandanavian countries. Longer growing season and greater forest productivity. Probably warming is a net loss for America--mostly due to an unwillingness to build reservoirs and infrastructure to cope with climate change. That is my two cents anyway, what I've gleaned from the mostly white noise that the issue generates. One of the things that is pretty interesting and has been in the news--what could happen with hurricane activity. More frequent El-Nino's could increase shear and actually decrease activity in the South Atlantic. But surely that energy will just go elsewhere--it probably ends up in stronger extra-tropical and subtropical systems elsewhere. One winter means nothing--but over the past winter the jet stream across the Pacific stayed directed at the Pacific Northwest. Usually the storm track sags south over Oregon and California for the middle part of the winter. If global warming means mild, stormier and wetter winters for Seattle--no thanks! The early dry spring, sure, quite nice, but this past winter winter here was just awful. Windstorms and mudslides...

To: Biomaven who wrote (23840)	5/29/2007 4:19:34 PM
From: Gary Mohilner	Respond to of 52153

Peter, Reducing carbon dioxide levels doesn't have to mean producing less, it could equally well be handled with usefully processing more of it. I believe I know how this can be done and am trying to put the idea in front of people with the wherewithall to try it. The beauty of what I'm proposing is it would result in making our oceans a far better producer not only of breathable oxygen, but also it would produce far more for fish to feed on, and therefore produce far more fish in time. Oceans currently process more carbon dioxide than is processed on land, yet much of the oceans surface is nearly sterile. I believe this is where much of the excess carbon dioxide can be handled if we step in and make it do so. By the way, don't know if you're still following IMGN which I know you once did, but I'm still invested, and I think ASCO will be impressive, especially the presentation on Tras-MCC-DM1. Gary