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: neolib who wrote (20013)	2/3/2008 1:40:45 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 36917

"But it might be wetter in Canada rather than the Amazon." there you go

To: neolib who wrote (20013)	2/3/2008 1:41:43 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

The following little snippet from realclimate mentions the model results of the Amazon. Hadley is in England IIRC. This was at the AGU meetings, so don't know if Booth et al have published this as a paper or not. I skipped out of the session to catch some posters, but I came back in time for an interesting talk by Booth et al, of the Hadley center, showing the robustness of their simulation of Amazon dieback against variations in uncertain atmospheric parameters (it may die sooner, it may die later, but die it does). He showed, though, that whether the Amazon dies back is sensitive to the formulation of the land surface model, with only about half of the randomly-chosen cases done giving a dieback. Is this a tipping point? I'm not sure I care whether it is or not, but it sure is important, especially given how much CO2 gets dumped into the atmosphere if the Amazon dies. A nasty thing is that the part of the Amazon that is most robust is precisely the part where deforestation from economic development is worst.

To: neolib who wrote (20013)	2/3/2008 2:09:26 PM
From: FJB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Humans have been adapting to climate change for several hundred thousand years. There have been ice ages in that time span when we were even worse off in technology. It seems a giant meteor would be of more concern to people. These changes in temperature and weather seem almost trivial in comparison to what we have already gone through. I am one of those that believes there are too many people. Resources are finite. You can not argue that.

To: neolib who wrote (20013)	2/3/2008 2:26:27 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 36917

dear always lying neolib AKA ear2earfeces, still waiting for any explanation of the science behind any global warming prediction models. This figure explains the stupidity and hoax behind supposition CO2 is driving global temperatures. toms.homeip.net toms.homeip.net