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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (392221)	6/18/2008 11:17:32 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Respond to of 1577887

This covers a period of 600 million years during which the earth went through several catastrophic events. I am not scientist but would it not be more useful to look at a smaller more recent period, say like 60k years, and see what was the norm for that period and what if any variations occurred? Yes and no - the theory is that CO2 drives warming - so the more data that either shows the correlation or not is useful. Even in the short term of a few thousand years there are several times the relationship does not hold true and the relationship between sun intensity does (for the short term we have data). Try explaining the little ice age and the warm period - why the drop from 1940-1980 that had scientists convinced the new ice age was upon us even though the amount of CO2 we released after WWII, the age of the personal car, saw massive increases in CO2 and virtually no warming and in fact cooling. If you prefer shorter time lines the variation in solar radiation is linked to planet temps far more closely than CO2 and explains the observation that Mars has also gone up and down in temperature recently with the earth and the measured increase and now decrease in solar intensity. No CO2 being released we know of there - except for the polar ice caps made of CO2 which should drive the temps up according to the theory not down after a while. I could ask you the same question back as it relates to stocks and expected future performance - if you take any day, week or month you can always find a spot that looks really bad - yet the long term chart shows regular and steady growth. Don't you think it wise to seriously examine both and ask if something has changed. In this case we've identified the change as CO2, but we also can now measure radiation and the upper troposphere - which according to CO2 theory should be getting warming if the warming was driven by CO2 - but it's not - if the warming was from solar variations then surface temps would vary and they are. So I have my doubts about CO2 driven warming and in fact the IPCC has backed off a bit from earlier projections, some original contributors to the IPCC and Al Gore's nobel have changed position entirely - politics however makes a mess of science via the funding dollars. I especially liked the example of studying squirrel nut collection behaviour - if you submit that project for funding you may get turned down for a grant, but with the system rigged for GW based research simply adding "how it's affected by GW" will get you the grant. That's bad for objective science when politicised like this - and I didn't cover the cap and trade ponzi scheme proposed by governments.