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 (5133)	2/21/2009 1:34:09 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

I didn't see any evidence of CO2 causing a feedback loop there. I dunno, Brumar, seems like you don't read your own links. For example (my bolding): The Milankovitch theory[1] of climate change is not perfectly worked out; in particular, the largest observed response is at the 100,000-year timescale, but the forcing is apparently small at this scale, in regard to the ice ages. Various feedbacks (from carbon dioxide, or from ice sheet dynamics) are invoked to explain this discrepancy. Carbon levels in the atmosphere isn't the only factor influencing climate, as you yourself have pointed out many times. Neither are orbital cycles. Or tectonic movements and placement. Or ocean currents. Or volcanic activity. Or ice buildup (or melting). Or type and quantity of plants (i.e., how efficient they are at using and sequestering carbon). Or the type of life (including bacterial life) that predominates at any given time. They are all factors, with one or another of them predominating at different times, depending on the particular configuration of conditions and how they all interact. That is what makes the study of climate so interesting and vexing all at once.