SI
SI
discoversearch

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 Environmentalist Thread
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Maurice Winn who wrote (18801)12/22/2007 2:26:40 PM
From: neolib  Read Replies (1) of 36921
 
You are plain wrong on the "balance" of carbon in the "carbon cycle". There is a cycle, but there is a very huge drain in the form of deposition of carbon at the bottom of the ocean in the sediment which goes into permanent storage. A lot is recycled by way of volcanoes, but a lot isn't. A vast amount is in limestone, shale, Athabasca, Orinoco, coal and other graveyards such as oil and gas fields.

You seem to hop between the very short scale (annual cycles) and very long scales (ice ages, or even 100's million years) at your convenience. I would never claim that the CO2 is in balance on the timespan of ice ages or longer. I accept the temp/CO2 data from ice cores with no problem. One can clearly run an FFT on that data and look at the resulting frequency spectrum.

But sans humans digging up and burning buried carbon, or major land use changes, or major volcanism developing, there is an approximate balance on the time span of centuries.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News