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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Moominoid who wrote (22154)	9/8/2007 9:29:27 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218168

Moom, at least we are dickering over precisely the right amount of CO2 which is desirable, rather than the principles and mechanisms of what's happening. Given the threat of a return to glaciation, due last century [give or take a year or two], and given the history of CO2 at much higher levels than when the 20th century began, I far prefer to have a higher rather than lower level, on the precautionary principle of staying well away from cliff edges. The danger from a warmer climate is that sea levels will rise slightly over a century and people will need to slightly adjust their agricultural processes because of variations in local conditions. The danger from a return to glaciation is something that would happen [in Mq's theory developed in 1987] over a period of less than a decade and probably about three years would confirm the start as snow cover permafrost extends and a feedback loop of reflection of incoming light goes critical. If the area of previous glaciations is considered, and the effect on people living there and elsewhere, it would be a very bad thing to deal with. The normal state of Earth for a long time has been ice age. Staying out of it is a good idea. Mqurice

To: Moominoid who wrote (22154)	9/9/2007 9:45:37 AM
From: Slagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218168

Moominoid, Before one million years ago there was no permanent ice at the North Pole. Before forty million years ago there was no permanent ice at the South Pole. Before that the earth was "ice free" and had been for a very long time. I'm thinking that "ice free" might be the "natural" state of Gaia. As far as we know, the earth has been "ice free" for much more of its life than otherwise. Right now we are enjoying the warmth of the Holocene interglacial period and with past as prologue soon the ice will return and we will be subjected to another glaciation like the Wisconsin or Wrum glaciation which just recently ended. In the last million or so years this process has repeated eight or more times, on roughly 100,000 year intervals. 125,000 years ago at the peak of the previous interglacial warm period, the Sangamon or Eemian, it is believed that the oceans of the world were 4 to 6 meters higher than they are now. Some believe that they were at this time a bit higher than that, maybe 10 or 12 meters above the present level. There is geologic data from the Georgia, Carolina and Florida to coasts to support this. Also, at other times during the mid to late Pleistocene, likely during earlier and as yet unnamed interglacial warm periods, but still during the last million years and hence during the present ice age, the worlds oceans were 20 or more meters higher than they are at the present moment. Moominoid, do you accept the above to be more or less correct? Well, how do you suppose that earlier interglacials caused more polar melting and apparently more thermal expansion of the oceans than we have now? The earth must have been warmer then, at least for a while, as this would be the only possible way this could happen. But we were not there, burning fossil fuel and cutting down forests. And not only did this happen once, but eight or more times on fairly regular intervals going back a million years or so. Almost like the tides. How would you explain that? I would say that it is impossible to explain. We don't have enough data, for one thing. If we had been there YEAR by YEAR with our instruments going back maybe three hundred million years or more, to the beginning of the previous ice age we would have a pretty good feel for the nature of ice ages, having gone through one complete cycle and part of another one. There is a big limit to the value of interpolated data, error creeps in very quickly. We don't KNOW for sure the composition of the atmosphere from long ago, all we can do is speculate. For example, there exists no ice core gas data from even the early part of this ice age and the reliability of this ice core data that we have varies inversely with its age. Moominoid, what do you suppose caused the greater warmth than we have now at the peak of the Sangamon interglacial 125,000 years ago?. Cave men? Slagle