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 (6956)	4/6/2009 8:15:45 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| 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. Well, we can measure the approximate CO2 levels from that period, because it's trapped in the Antarctic ice layers for that period. And then you can compare them against the observed (or calculated) minimums: en.wikipedia.org Changes in the C-14 record, which are primarily (but not exclusively) caused by changes in solar activity. Note that "before present" is used in the context of radiocarbon dating, where "present" has been fixed at 1950. Btw, take the historical levels of CO2 back a few 100 million years and see where the planet currently stands against the CO2 record: junkscience.com junkscience.com The fact is that CO2 levels are at a historic low in the planetary history. Historical levels have NORMALLY been around 1000-3000 parts per million (as compared to the current 380 ppm). Which means that NATURE has played a huge roll in sequestering a huge quantity of the gas, because MAN DID NOT YET EXIST!! Take a look at the previous historical period where CO2 levels were at current lows, the carboniferous period: geocraft.com 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, The above FACTS SHOULD be sufficient evidence to indicate that NATURE HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR HUGE CO2 FLUCTUATIONS. When put into the perspective of the paleo-climatic record, we're at a historical low level of CO2, which indicates that you're trying to push against the planetary pendulum and doomed to failure). You wanted evidence that mankind will never match nature's ability to create fluctuation in the planet's CO2 levels?? That SHOULD be sufficient.. But I'll wager that it's not, because it's not about facts and science with you.. It's about bluster and psuedo scientific driven political policy. Hawk