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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (88010)	8/8/2018 11:43:01 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 361291

I'd go with the space rock or the nuclear war, both of which would cool the planet. A pandemic just means fewer people will have to deal with a planet which will continue to warm for 30 or 40 years, or maybe thousands. Global warming doesn't stop when the emissions stop - Phys.org October 3, 2017 by Ute Kehse, Max Planck Society Our climate is out of balance: Increasing accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere has caused the Earth's temperature to increase by 0.8° C since the beginning of the industrial revolution. According to a study by Thorsten Mauritsen from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and Robert Pincus of the University of Colorado, even if we stopped all emissions from fossil fuels tomorrow, the Earth would still warm by a further 0.3° C. In this interview, Mauritsen explains why it will take millennia for the Earth to get back into balance.

To: combjelly who wrote (88010)	8/8/2018 12:21:01 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Recommended By Maple MAGA Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 361291

When you put it like that it's silly. But having been involved with too many funerals in the last few weeks and years, I'm sad to report that extinction events are the norm. Expecting the future to simply extrapolate from the past is a bung idea as the Club of Rome would now agree. Extrapolating with continued population reduction and technological acceleration 2100 is going to be a lot different from now even without super grand scale calamitously cataclysmic catastrophes. Maybe that's a bad extrapolation but maybe not. Whether we need to reduce CO2 output is not at all certain. After 100 years of vast effort to excavate and burn carbon we have achieved bugger all. Not even 1 degree and it's uncertain we can really claim any of that. And we have only got CO2 to 400 parts per million from 280 ppm. At that rate it'll be a cold day in Hell before we get CO2 even to 600ppm which would be a tiny fraction of what was in air once upon a time. People are going for photovoltaics, efficiency, insulation. They are evading buying good old oil and coal. At $70 a barrel there's a lot of incentive to do something else and they are. Donald Trump's attitude is to wait and see. Also that China, India and the 95% of the world who are not Americans should do it. USA has already slashed CO2 output per GDP. Mqurice