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 : BuSab -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oral Roberts who wrote (419)	3/31/2009 11:28:40 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23934

The global warmers remind me of the blind man examining the elephant's trunk. "ahhh..yes, it is long slender and very flexible animal. Much like a snake". Using the past 200 years as evidence of global warming without showing a few previous cycles, is meaningless. The earth's climate is cyclical. There are many factors that can affect climate. i106.photobucket.com I'm looking for the CO2 levels for 2008 right now. One of the things that I believe needs to be established is the causal relationship between CO2 and global climate. Does increased CO2 cause global warming or does global warming cause increased atmospheric CO2? One important variable in the whole equation is how much CO2 can be dissolved in the oceans. Cooler waters hold more CO2. Warmer water will tend to outgas CO2 like a carbonated drink. Since 2008 was a cold year (actually colder than the long term mean) and we can assume that any reduction in anthropogenic CO2 was nominal, if the atmospheric CO2 levels decreased in 2008 it would be a strong indication that the causal relationship between global temperature and CO2 is inverted. In other words, global warming causes increased CO2 levels. In 1991 there was a very rapid drop in temperature AND CO2 levels. Two notable events happened in 1991. The first is Mt Pinatubo erupted and put a great amount particulate matter into the atmosphere. This effectively blocked the amount of sunlight that was reaching the earth. The atmospheric CO2 levels also decreased dramatically in 1991. On the surface you can say "aha! What JXM was implying must be true...we had cooling so the oceans were able to contain more CO2, case closed!". However, the other notable event in 1991 was the collapse of the soviet union. And there is evidence that there was less fossil fuel burned in the soviet union in that time period. So it kinda muddies the waters. But since there were no collapses of super powers who burn lots of fossil fuels in 2008, if the CO2 levels did decrease, it should support the idea that the causal relationship is opposite of what is being touted by the global warmers. Published information seems to be a year or two delayed, but I am going to dig more.