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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (32524)	4/27/2003 4:40:57 AM
From: Snowshoe	Respond to of 74559

Not in the North, not because of land or variery. But because trees there grow only about 3 moths But Elmat, in the north the summer growing day is a lot longer than it is in the tropics. In the middle of summer my grass grows around the clock, and I have to mow it every other day! It's that tilted earth axis thing.

To: elmatador who wrote (32524)	4/27/2003 12:04:45 PM
From: Moominoid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

CO2 is 'parked' as limestone and methane under the tundra and the sea bed. Perhaps over the millions of years there have been a fluctuation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and 'parked' elsewhere. And as oil, coal and biomass and in soils. There are big biotic flows each year - much bigger than the anthropogenic flows. However, the anthropogenic flows are important to putting things out of equilibrium - a bit like those small trade deficits etc. relative to foreign currency trading. Within a given range the climate system is stable. If we stop increasing emissions maybe it would come to a new equilibrium... if we cut emissions it will go back to the old equilibrium. The danger is if we push things too far we may enter a new basin of attraction... but we just don't know that. I would not try to stop CO2 emission. The most effective way is to increase the 'drain', i.e., by planing more trees. In Australia this is clearly the most cost effective immediate solution and it has other environmentally beneficial effects as well. However, it is only a short term solution unless you go bury the wood in the ocean somewhere.... but it can buy time as alternative more efficient technologies are developed. Fuel cells aren't outlandish as part of an integrated system that would say strip apart hydrogen and carbon from fossil fuels. Use the first as a mobile fuel and the second as a stationary fuel and bury the CO2 in old oil reservoirs. Ford and BP are funding research on this at Princeton for example. There are three things we know about climate change and two key uncertainties. What we know: 1. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising fast and is due to burning fossil fuels etc. (this from isotopic ratios in the carbon). The absorption rate is also increasing but not fast enough. 2. More CO2 in the atmosphere means, everything constant higher temperatures. 3. Temperatures have increased substantially in the last century or so. Any climate change skeptics who tell you otherwise on these three facts either don't know what they are talking about or are lying. The increase in temperature is probably in a large part due to the increase in CO2, partly due to a brighter sun. The exact partition is not known with a very high degree of certainty but there is pretty much overwhelming evidence that it is there. What we don't know: 1. The future strength of the feedbacks in the carbon cycle. Will the absorption rate continue to increase or will the sinks saturate at some point. This tells us how much we need to cut emissions by to give a certain concentration of gas in the atmosphere. 2. Strength of feedbacks in the climate system. Increased clouds, ocean circulation etc. can offset the direct warming effect. The more offsets the less sensitive the climate is to the greenhouse gases. Research is really about finding out about these 2 uncertainties.