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: RetiredNow who wrote (6849)	4/3/2009 3:55:11 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

but what if rising CO2 offset that cooling and we actually see a rise in temperature? Dude, ASSUMING that CO2 has the kind of effect you're stating (as opposed to methane and so many other more potent GG's). And then ignoring the logical evidence that reduced oceanic phytoplankton levels with consequent reduced sequestration of CO2 emissions (natural and/or man-made), you're probably going to PRAY for some relief from cold temperatures. But unfortunately, reduced phytoplankton levels ALSO mean a diminished marine food chain, which will only increase the the depletion of ocean fauna and that's not something I think we should be sacrificing in order to warm the planet. The REAL POINT is that all the evidence suggests that we're in store for a period of GLOBAL COOLING, not warming, possibly for between 40-100 years. And global cooling has far more drastic impacts on humanity (and wildlife) than does warming as history has shown us. Hawk