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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Whitebeard who wrote (227033)	11/6/2007 8:52:54 AM
From: mph	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793888

I don't think the blind acceptance of global warming is all that surprising. It's a huge scare tactic brought to you by basically the same people who accuse Bush or other Republicans of trying to scare people about an allegedly overstated terrorist threat. The proponents of global warming have been brain washing children in school on the topic for some time now. I saw a commercial the other day using children where they were all expressing fear. One wide eyed child spoke of her mother's fear of global warming. It's become a bogeyman story with dolphins and polar bears on the endangered list, as well as the children themselves. It is also ironic that many of the same people who promote global warming agenda and the indoctrination of children on the topic also don't want anyone to be winners and losers (ala Oscars, e.g.) or to be held to high academic standards for fear of leaving behind some of their prospective voting base. Personally, I'd rather see a child obsess over doing well on a math test than sit in her closet, wringing her hands and worrying over global warming. When I was a child we worried about the nuclear threat as we practiced hiding under our desks. At least the nuclear threat was real. The problem with topics like global warming is that they are wrapped in the warm and fuzzy language of the do-gooders, which unfortunately, is often nothing more than packaging designed to mask real agendas.

To: Whitebeard who wrote (227033)	11/6/2007 2:05:33 PM
From: goldworldnet	Respond to of 793888

To understand how beneficial global warming could turn out to be, it helps to understand that for the past 40 million years, the Earth has been getting steadily colder, not warmer. Continental drift has brought more land closer to the poles, and the Antarctic and Arctic ice caps have gradually grown, with intermittent periods of contraction. Those periods of contraction, when it gets briefly warmer, are called interglacial periods, and we've been in one — the Holocene interglacial — for the past 10-12,000 years. Unfortunately, interglacial periods don't last long. The previous one, the Eemian, lasted 15-17,000 years before another ice age set in. Glacial periods last, on average, 100,000 years, steadily getting colder until temperatures suddenly shoot up again. Without human industrial activity, we would be already at least halfway through the current interglacial. A new glacial period would be due in 5-10,000 years. No more ice ages Through the burning of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide is now accumulating in the atmosphere. Tyrrell and his colleagues used a model to study what would happen if carbon dioxide continued to be emitted and how that would affect the long-term balance of carbon dioxide in the air and the ocean's chemistry. The ocean is absorbing some of the carbon dioxide emitted into the air, which is causing it to become more acidic. Similarly, the bubbles of carbon dioxide dissolved in your soda are what give it acidity. Tyrrell and his team's model shows that carbon dioxide levels will be higher far into the future than previously predicted, because the acidifying ocean will dissolve more calcium carbonate from the shells of marine organisms, which acts as a buffer against acidification. But this buffer can only help to a certain point, and eventually the ocean won't be able to take up any more carbon dioxide. "It can't just keep taking it up," said Joan Kleypas of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, who was not involved in the study. The model results, detailed in a recent issue of the journal Tellus, project that 8 to 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere will remain there for thousands of years, causing levels of the greenhouse gas to equilibrate in the atmosphere at twice their pre-industrial levels. "It won't go back to original levels," Kleypas told LiveScience. Even if we burn only a quarter of the Earth's total reserves of fossil fuels — currently we have burned less than one tenth of reserves — the carbon dioxide remaining in the atmosphere could cause the next glacial period to be skipped because ice sheets and glaciers will have melted and won't be able to reform substantially, Tyrrell found. In fact, burning up all of Earth's reserves would prevent the next five glacial periods, the model shows, he said. "Our research shows why atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop burning fossil fuels," Tyrrell said. "It shows that if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at what rate we burn them. The result would be the same if we burned them at present rates or at more moderate rates; we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result." climos.com * * *