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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (9918)	2/20/2012 11:41:46 PM
From: Little Joe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

I really don't want to get involved in a discussion of global warming, It never goes anywhere. Nonetheless, I believe it is generally accepted that the greenhouse effect exists. But is not well understood. If it were the computer models would not be wrong. There are so many variables, some known and some unknown. But the suggestion that the causes of climate change are well understood and that there is agreement among all scientists is simply not true. That is all I am going to say about it. lj

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (9918)	2/21/2012 7:43:10 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 85487

Arrhenius said raising the world temperature was a good thing because he feared a new ice age. He said burning coal would save us. Back around 1900, when CO2 levels were about 300 ppm, he said reducing CO2 by half (to 150) would lower world temperature by 4 degrees. (BTW at 150 ppm, most plants will stop growing.) Doubling it (to 600) would raise world temps by 4 degrees, he said. Quadrupling it (to 1200) would raise world temps by 8 degrees. He knew nothing about feedback effects or solar or other climate effects.