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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (3269)	12/2/2008 1:45:49 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86352

It isn't that rising rising temperatures don't cause carbon levels to rise in the atmosphere. It does. And the theme of the AGW theory is that rising CO2 levels will increase temperature. So we should have had runaway global warming, where rising temperatures raised CO2 levels, which raised temperature more, which raised CO2 more etc etc .... Since that didn't happen, there must be something wrong with the AGW theory. But there are other factors that can bring carbon levels down as well. Climate is anything but a simple system. There's a mouthful. And that damns the simplistic CO2 = global warming idea. Runaway greenhouse effects are possible. In theory. We haven't seen it happen in earths history. The fact that it "hasn't happened" doesn't mean it can't happen. I'd settle for the fact that it hasn't happened means its unlikely to happen. We've seen CO2 rise in the past w/o triggering runaway greenhouse effect. Why should it happen this time? But that doesn't mean that "Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor." It means something along those lines - either there are other factor(s) more important than CO2, there are negative feedbacks from raising CO2 we don't know about, or simply CO2 is a trace gas and not too important.