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 (16631)	10/3/2007 7:43:05 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

You're confusing thinking in terms of human lifetimes vs geological or astronomical time. Orbital effects on the weather happens over a veeeerrrrryyyyyy long time. And I don't mean a century or two. GW based on CO2 due to the industrial age is happening quickly. Far too quickly. If it happened gradually over a millenia, it wouldn't be too bad--people and other life would have a chance to adjust. It is also too intense. Look, for several hundred thousand years, we didn't go over 300 ppm of CO2. We just went over 300 ppm in the 20th century. We were at around 320 ppm in 1950 or so. We have gone to 387 ppm as of 2005, I think it was. The slope of the rate of increase has gotten steeper since 1970, and continues to get steeper. We've already baked in an increase over 400 ppm. Best guesses among IPCC scientists is that we will see large scale die offs when we get to over 450 ppm. Yeah, I know. What do scientists know anyway? They didn't think that the arctic would melt this fast. They're probably wrong about when we'll hit 450 ppm, and even if they're not, they're probably wrong about the effects. It will be good for life to fry in the heat. God wouldn't let that happen, would he? Nah.... I don't know what I'm worried about. Yeah, right.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (16631)	10/3/2007 10:56:45 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

You're admitting orbital dynamics can overcome CO2? Not at the rate we are producing it. Orbital dynamics can handle in about 100000 years what we have produced in about 250 years. Do you see why the nutty little book made nutty little examples for the kiddies? You can't comprehend the real thing. If it can't be explained to you how can it be explained to kids? Although I'll grant that for an adult you're obtuse, so perhaps it is easier to explain to kids than to you. Are you claiming human CO2 increases are putting off the next ice age? In effect, this is an argument AGW is good. Yes, our CO2 is helping to delay an ice age that is many thousands of years away. It is doing even more than that. It will heat the earth up above any of the temps seen on the graph if we keep at it. There is a wise time and a foolish time to add 5 degrees. The foolish time is to tack on 5 degrees when you are already at a peak. I've stated many times that I don't think the earth will see another 100000 year long ice age interglacial cycle, because the forcing from GG gives us a tool which is comparable in magnitude to the forcing from orbital dynamics which is the root cause of these cycles. Unless humans are truly stupid or nuke themselves or some other idiotic thing happens. My opinion has long been that to the extent we might affect the weather (and that isn't that clear that we have, despite the propaganda to the contrary) the effect, if any, is more likely to be benign than negative. Your opinion never has any chain of logic facts behind it either. Why not try once in awhile?