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 (10318)	7/2/2009 8:35:26 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Hawk, maybe it's a combination of human emissions and phytoplankton loss. Why does it always have to be one or the other? My view is that we have a confluence of events with co-variation. All of these variables (increase fossil fuel burning, decreased phytoplankton, decreased forest population, etc) all feed on each other to create this vicious cycle resulting in ever increasing CO2 and temperatures. I think your belief that if we solve the phytoplankton problem, we solve the CO2 and temperature problem, is too simplistic. I'd love to see a pareto analysis of root causes of temperature increase from emitters and sinks of CO2 over the last 100 years versus previous epochs. I'd bet it'd go something like this: 1) burning of fossil fuels = 40% 2) phytoplankton loss = 25% 3) deforestation = 15% 4) increase in sunspots = 5% 5) other causes in aggregate = 15% Solve for the top 3 and we solve the problem, if you admit that the increases in temperature and CO2 beyond the upper control limit (3 sigma above the mean) is a problem.