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.

Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: A.J. Mullen who wrote (1120)	11/22/1999 10:26:00 PM
From: T L Comiskey	Respond to of 12248

A.J.....< Our problem is that we should make decisions on inadequate information. Farmers and fishermen, and other business people do this all the time.>.... REUTERS.... Washington, Feb.25 Tundra releases Carbon Dioxide When Temperatures Rise..... A team at Ohio State University tested plots of Arctic tundra and found that by raising temperatures by about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit caused the tundra to release extra CO2. "We found significant losses of CO2 from the soil of the tundra," Michael Jones, who is researching evolution, ecology and organismal biology at Ohio State said in a statement.Writing in the journal Arctic and Alpine Research,Jones said a slight increase in temperatures increased the CO2 emission by 26-38 percent. The arctic, which covers about one fifth of the globe, contains nearly one third of the earth's stored soil carbon. " The arctic has the most rapidly changing climate of any region on earth," Jones said Last month ,scientists reported that global warming could be disrupting the balance of ocean-born plankton. Diatoms may prevail over algae that absorb carbon- adding to the cycle of global warming.

To: A.J. Mullen who wrote (1120)	11/24/1999 3:29:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12248

Thanks AJ, yes, indeed, I messed up kg and T. So the annual addition of CO2 is 17.6 billion tons according to their figures. There is nearly 8bn tonnes of fossil fuels consumed each year [which is a reliable figure from BP/Amoco Statistical Review of World Energy]. 8 bn tonnes of fossil fuel gives about 29 billion tons of CO2. So there is a discrepancy between the annual output of CO2 from that source and BP/Amoco. But they are passably close. So, the annual addition from fossil fuel is 29/2600 which is 1%. [There is a lot of hydrogen in that 8bn tonnes per year of fossil fuels = gas, oil, coal]. Okay that is orders of magnitude more than I get when wrongly calling 'kg', 'tonnes'. I wonder if that CO2 total in the atmosphere right now is correct? I better go hunting to confirm it. That's not the answer I got last time I checked out [ half a year or more ago] whether the annual addition of CO2 would matter, so I'm back to square one. 1% a year is a big increase [well, it's not going up that fast as shown by the CO2 measurements]. So people could well be totally responsible for the increase we are getting in ambient CO2. Damn, now I have to revisit my prejudices and figure out what's right. I trust the BP/Amoco figures. I need a good total CO2 in the atmosphere figure. Got an url anyone? Here's some good information eia.doe.gov which shows global human Carbon emission [not CO2] as 7.1 billion tonnes per year and natural emissions as 150 billion tonnes per year. So people are doing nearly 5% of the emissions. That's not a very big market share. Even the JJJ Klan [Joel Klein, Janet Reno and Judge Jackon] wouldn't think it monopolistic and harming consumers. I'll keep looking for total tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere. Meanwhile, I'm now back to where I started a few years ago: that there is probably a significant effect, but it is a good effect because it brings C back to life and I quite like life. Thanks for pointing out my daily blunder! These are deliberate reader tests to see if anyone can spot them... Mqurice