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: Hawkmoon who wrote (6948)	4/6/2009 4:18:38 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

If I were a scientist involved in these calculations I'd build a model with both sunspot activity and CO2 levels in it and determine which is more impactful to temperature measurements. I haven't seen an analysis like that. I think both impact temperature, but until someone does a modeling analysis including both, we won't know which is the prime root cause of temperature fluctuations. Again, what if CO2 level increases are increasing temperatures faster than the opposite pull from fewer sunspots? It is possible, although, I haven't seen an analysis that proves it either way. BTW, I've often thought about one of your points as well. All the fossil fuel we are burning into the atmosphere got into the ground through natural processes. So the Earth will survive our burning up of all our fossil fuels. However, the question isn't whether the Earth will survive. It's more along the lines of whether we push the Earth's processes too far to where the impacts are either very costly for humans or even existential, if those impacts push natural processes beyond the range within which we can survive.