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: Brumar89 who wrote (3289)	12/2/2008 3:57:20 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86352

You seem to know enough to use words and you make assertions that touch the truth sometimes, but they distort it. You say for example, "At bottom, AGW is simplistic. And if it can't survive being looked at, go ahead and call it a straw man." What is simplistic is your version of what people who think that climate change will happen are saying. realclimate.org is not "propaganda," it may be underwritten by Fenton (I don't know), but its contributors are all scientists who are almost always specialists who are writing about topics that they have published on in peer reviewed publications. You posted earlier that increasing temperatures led to CO2 increases. And you believe that CO2 increases will lead to temperature increases. Those two things are all you need to forecast runaway global warming. Talk about simplistic. There are other factors besides CO2 that are at work w/r/t climate. No one pretends otherwise. Yes. Other factors more significant than CO2. yes, but we're talking what is happening now. CO2 has become more important now because it is being added to the mix of things that affect climate. Just take one example: Temperature is affected especially at the higher latitude regions. Glacial ice melts, lowering the albedo of the poles, leading to higher temperatures and more melting leading to higher temperatures and more melting. It also leads to freshening of the North Atlantic, which may lead to slowing of the ocean's thermohaline circulator which may lead to less heat being transferred to the poles which would mean a cooling of the polar regions, counteracting the heat from the CO2 and the lower albedo. Very complicated positive and negative feedbacks. I don't really know what the impact of co2 is. Neither does anyone else. I only know the observations we have of CO2 changes and temperature. And those don't lead to a belief we're facing an imminent catastrophe. Which is what you believe. Depends on what you mean by "imminent." But yes, I do believe that if do nothing about it and keep burning coal like we have been, then bad things--very bad things--for human beings and many other living creatures will be set in motion. But one correction to your statement "I only know the observations we have of CO2 changes and temperature." No you don't "know" that; you are being as simpleminded about that as you accuse me of being about CO2. >> (like CO2 being washed out of the atmosphere by rain, CO2 isn't washed out by rain. Yes, CO2 is washed out by rain. Perhaps I should have been more "technical." The way it happens is that CO2 and water vapor form a weak form of carbonic acid. See chem.usu.edu for the basic chemistry if you wish. Or not. You can remain ignorant if you wish to do that as well. But frankly, I am getting tired of replying to someone who seemed at first like he knew at least a little bit, but apparently is just being obstinately ignorant. It doesn't become you and is a colossal waste of my time. I'm willing to reply to someone who wants to read, think and reason, but not willing to play stupid games. So if you actually want to learn something, go read some of the essays on this site: aip.org If you just want to play games, play with someone else. The "professionals" on other threads will be happy to accommodate you.