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 (5146)	2/21/2009 7:42:38 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

Wasn't referring to whether CO is a GHG, but the feedback loop claimed. Yes, I know, and your own link said (correctly) that a feedback loop is necessary to explain temperature changes. The changes in energy that arrives on earth from orbital cycles just isn't strong enough all by itself. And that feedback loop has been explained both theoretically and experimentally. It isn't controversial among scientists it is only bloggers who want to pretend it is controversial. To repeat: 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.