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 : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (3709)	2/8/2014 12:33:40 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4326

Jorj, that is an very well written post. I concur fully with your logic, analysis and assessment. The only thing I would add are some of my ideas on the vast ignorance in the words of the AGW debate. In the discussion all use of the term green house effect and green house gas. The effect of CO2, H20, methane ...etc in delaying the radiative cooling of the earth has no relationship to the mechanism of a Green House warming in sunlight. Calling them green house gasses is universally accepted it seems, but is wrong. The explanations in physic also use a process called radiative forcing. That concept and process is false and the conclusions draw from it do violate the laws of thermodynamics. In almost all discussion of global warming there is an implicit understanding that all are talking about the false Green House effect and radiative forcing. The terms are used almost universally. I believe all true physicists know this and very few are willing to step up into the storm of debate. To publicly declare this means one is calling all who do not get this idiots in the comprehension of the real laws of physics. But that is how it is.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (3709)	2/9/2014 10:54:17 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4326

-Scientist understands that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and recognizes that GHGs are increasing rapidly. And you know that I, having a bit of interest in the question of how phytoplankton impacts CO2 levels, have to add that atmospheric CO2 level increases have pretty much coincided with decreasing levels of oceanic phytoplankton. In fact, nearly at a 1:1 ratio, percentage wise. And I think that is a correlation that suggests nearly criminal scientific negligence amongst the AGW prognosticators who fail to incorporate it into their climate models. The primary question I have is why those phytoplankton levels have decreased. I have gut hunch that possibly CO2 emissions by humanity has exceeded nature's ability to provide sufficient Iron and other trace nutrients so that phytoplankton can actually metabolize and sequester that excess CO2. But if that is the case, then the solution is pretty clear.. Augment (ie: fertilize) the oceans with Iron and those other trace elements in order to restore a balance (what that balance should actually be is another question).. Hawk