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 (7764)	4/27/2009 6:35:19 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

You are grossly underestimating their knowledge. >> So using the scientific method, we would be testing a hypothesis, and do he experimentation with no expectations and let the data fall where it does. Tell that to all of those atmospheric scientists, who your SIL says, assert that humanity has induced GW. I can tell you right now that if the atmospheric scientists are not incorporating the 20-30% decline in oceanic phytoplankton, then their data regarding human influence on CO2 levels is flawed. If the planet's flora is diminished, but CO2 emissions remain steady, it will STILL REFLECT AN INCREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 LEVELS!! This ALONE should indicate to you that making such conclusions about human induced GW is a bit premature. Ask your SIL if any atmospheric scientists have incorporated data related to diminished ocean phytoplankton in their analysis. I'd be surprised if you find more than 1 or 2 who claim they have. In fact, I'd be surprised if you find ANY who have. Hawk<<

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (7764)	4/27/2009 9:21:48 PM
From: The Vet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Even the measurement of atmospheric CO2 hasn't been subject to proper scrutiny. Almost all figures are based on the data from Mauna Loa and they do generally show a steady increase. However Hawaii is not as isolated from the industrial world as many seem to believe and Mauna Loa at 3,400 m is certainly high enough to avoid surface produced CO2 variations. However a major source of CO2 at altitude comes directly from aircraft and Hawaii has a thriving and increasing air transport system. It is the major means of transport of people from island to island and the activity has increased over the same period as the CO2 measurement have also been shown to have increased. Coincidence? Maybe, but where is the graph that relates air traffic in Hawaii with Mauna Loa's CO2 data? If there is no relationship, it should be easy to show that as all the figures are easily available. I suspect you will never see the comparison simply because it will demonstrate an inconvenient doubt! Air travel around the islands tends to have seasonal variation as well increasing in the peak tourist seasons and decreasing during less popular periods. Just check the graphs here, esrl.noaa.gov and see if you can pick the top tourist travel periods...