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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: twmoore who wrote (150782)	9/19/2019 6:03:53 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Recommended By pak73 Pogeu Mahone Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217712

It's complicated. In a nutshell... I'm on the fence too. But I operate on different first principles from most. Earth was never in balance. From the carboniferous it has been stripping carbon from the ecosphere in a tragedy of the commons. It has buried that carbon in colossal deposits of limestone, coal, shale, tars,oil and gas. Also in kilometres of marine deposits. Plants were starving at 280ppm. Now we've got it up to a pleasant 400ppm after 100 years of vast effort during which time about a third of the CO2 has already been removed. It looks as though 600ppm of CO2 will have a net good effect. So I'm not worried. Sea level rise is trivial. Insignificant compared with a meteor in the Pacific ocean. The climate models have proved to be hopeless. There's lotsto think about. Mqurice

To: twmoore who wrote (150782)	9/19/2019 7:55:16 PM
From: SirWalterRalegh	1 Recommendation Recommended By elmatador Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217712

I still sit on the fence as far as climate change. Whether it is climate change or global warming it is all about politics. I do my best to minimize by "footprint" but otherwise I am not concerned about the viability of our planet. It has been here for billions of years and most likely continue for billions of years. Who are we to think we control the future of the planet. It is all hubris and politics. The people who sit on the fence are mostly those who were recently indoctrinated by our "educational" system. Those who are so smart they are $100-200K in debt and working in a low level job.

To: twmoore who wrote (150782)	9/20/2019 2:26:48 AM
From: Maurice Winn	6 Recommendations Recommended By bruiser98 ig isopatch marcher pak73 and 1 more member Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217712

Also there is solar variation leading to short periods of little ice age during the million year period of ice age and 10,000 year interglacials. Which led to sea level rising 250 metres and falling and rising. The 3 mm per year now is trivial. With air temperature barely up from the little ice age there's no chance of Antarctica melting and Greenland isn't going green though they say there's melting of Greenland. It might be the northern hemisphere soot and dust that's absorbing sunlight on the surface and melting it. Stop putting muck in the air China ... and others. And earths magnetic field stops incoming stuff which causes some high cloud which reflects sunlight and is cooling. Cosmic rays vary so those clouds do. The big effect is water as clouds, snow cover and irrigation of deserts. The gulf stream takes megatons of CO2 down to the ocean bottom for 1000 years. Plants and animals take CO2 from oceans and their debris settles into kilometres of sediment which is eventually subducted and fuels volcanoes and gets turned to oil and gas deposits if it doesn't get up a volcano. The subduction volcanoes are explosive because of entrained hydrocarbons and water. Hawaii is not because it's upwelling magma with little fuel nowhere near subduction zones. CO2 at 400 ppm is obviously nice. 280 ppm was too low. I guess 600 ppm would be nicer with plants loving it. They need less water at high CO2 so that's another benefit. I used to sell fuel oil so glasshouse farmers could warm and enrich the CO2 for crops. They can save money now. The simplistic climate models that ignore clouds, gamma rays, greening of deserts, dew point variations that change cloud latitude and coverage, etc are useless. If everything was equal, then increasing CO2 a lot would do a little warming. But reality iver 130 years shows negligible effect in temperature but lits on plant growth. Things like that. Mqurice

To: twmoore who wrote (150782)	9/20/2019 7:04:55 AM
From: 3bar	1 Recommendation Recommended By marcher Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217712

Mq knows his stuff on climate . There is one small fact that will allow anyone to know where your climate is going and that is to watch the sun spots/solar flares on the face of the sun facing Earth . As Mq knows it is complicated and sometimes extraneous events alter what men think should be . The # per day is a proxy for warming up or cooling down . In the 90's as we warmed they were up to 160/day on average . As of Jan of this year it has dropped to zero to 1 or 2 . Clearly a major change . As a rule of thumb below 50 we are cooling . You can see the # every day at spaceweather.com top left of the link . To enter another reality look to this link . Subject 59964