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: Maurice Winn who wrote (18710)	12/20/2007 10:27:08 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36921

How on Earth do you get that idea from anything I have written? Because you made the idiotic statement that CO2 falls rapidly each year WITHOUT also pointing out that it rises rapidly each year as well. The yearly cycle does not add or subtract much net CO2 at all compared to its amplitude. Look at any high resolution graph of CO2 vs time. You are using the (maximim??) slope of the yearly cycle to imply that the longer term average can change just as fast, (at least, a reasonable person reading the sentence below would assume that is what you mean). Which of course is complete nonsense. My point was that in the absence of CO2 from humans, the rate of absorption would be quick. It would not take a century for the CO2 levels humans have produced to revert to the natural "background" levels. We could go into ice age in as short a time as two years. ROTFLMAO. If you look at the historical temp charts, we COME OUT of ice ages in something like 5-10K years, but the cycle going into one is very long, something like 50K years. You might also note if you look at such graphs that we just recently came out of the last major ice age, and are right at the tip top of the normal 100K year temp cycle. So we are adding heat at the very top, and are currently in about the safest place we can be regarding ice ages.