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: Triffin who wrote (21045)	3/28/2008 1:06:48 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 36917

Is it safe to assume that this has been done ?? ie A study of orbital dynamics as it relates to the timing of prior glaciations ?? I'm not aware that we have the ability to influence changes in the planet's orbit so; therefore, I assume that the scientific commmunity 'knows' where we are and where we're headed in the current climate cycle ?? Thus AGW would serve to either amplify or mitigate the natural cycle .. You should read the lines following the part you quote as well: Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted. The orbital cycles are very long term. What the climatologists who talk about climate change today are talking about is something that is, geologically speaking, very short term--within the next century or two (and it appears to happening faster than the consensus view at the IPCC anticipated--see carbonequity.info ). The problem of separating out what is natural and what is the result of human activity is a vexing one that scientists have grappled with since the late 70s, when the scientific community at large first started taking the CO2 problem really seriously (there were a small number of individuals who took it seriously before then, but it is fair to say that it wasn't a "burning" issue in the scientific community at large before then--see aip.org for a good not too long history of the discovery of climate change written for lay people). The vast majority of scientists working in the field today believe that the issue has been settled, but of course most people on this thread disagree with that. Whatever. It's senseless to argue the point.