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 (20635)	2/28/2008 5:19:03 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36918

So, in effect what you're saying is you have absolutely no idea whether models predicting the earth warming in the future are accurate, due to the complex variables associated with the worlds climate?

To: neolib who wrote (20635)	2/28/2008 12:29:26 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36918

All physical properties of CO2 increase thermal lift and that causes heat transfer by convection and advection to increase. Those physical properties of CO2 cool the earth. That does fit with 600 thousand years of CO2 levels following global temperature changes. If CO2 drives temperature, it drives cooling by the 600 thousand years of data currently collected. The facts 1. molecules of H20 can transport 298 times the cal/g as CO2 2. there are dozens and dozens of H2O molecules for every CO2. 3. H20 in the form of ice can reflect 99% of incoming solar radiation where CO2 can reflect 0% What science supposes any mechanism for CO2 causing global warming in our known earth environment. Only the divine revelation of 5F divinity school drop outs and the perversion of mathematical masturbation done by some who call themselves climatologists.

To: neolib who wrote (20635)	3/2/2008 3:51:21 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36918

No rocket science. Even an idiot can figure this out. -lol- Never underestimate an idiots ability not to understand something. -g-

To: neolib who wrote (20635)	3/2/2008 10:34:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 36918

Neo, I think the implicit logic is that, if the sun stops generating sufficient radiation to maintain global temperatures, then the whole equation of what constitutes global warming must be rebalanced. And we need to recognize that whatever we're trying to do constitutes "geo-engineering" of the planet's climate. It's similiar to the argument about phytoplankton I've referred to previously. CO2 levels should only increase in the atmosphere if emissions exceed the capacity to sequester it (regardless of whether the excess emissions are natural, or man-made). And the capacity to sequester excess CO2 overwhelmingly depends upon oceanic flora and the biological pump that deposits carbon laden debris to the ocean depths. In sum, if there are insufficient nutrients to sustain the capacity of phytoplankton (and terrestrial flora) to sequester C02, then CO2 levels in the atmosphere will increase. Now.. the same thing can be said for solar radiation. If the sun maintains its normal solar cycle of sunspot activity, then variations in global temperature changes will fluctuate according to historic norms (between solar maximums and minimums). During solar maximums, increased CO2 levels will result in increase global temperatures, but during minimums, it will actually insulate the planet against the effects of declining solar radiation. In such a case, in our feeble attempts to thwart nature's climatic fluctuations and maintain conditions we've become accustomed to, the greater tool we have is the oceanic flora, and it might then benefit us to increase our man-made CO2, and even methane emissions. And as we can see with solar cycle 24, it was one of the highest peaks in recorded history, but NASA scientists are predicting that #25 will be one of the lowest and it is due to reach it's peak within 14 years: science.nasa.gov This has significant impact upon how we assess just what we do with regard to current GW strategies. We may well discover that we might want to wait until AFTER 2016-2020 to really get serious about it. But that's for the scientific community to wrassle with. All I know is that the implicit logic regarding the oceanic biological pump requires us to focus upon phytoplankton as the primary tool for controlling excessive CO2 emissions until we've arrived at the point where alternative fuel solutions have been globally available. Hawk