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: Moominoid who wrote (58601)	1/9/2005 7:45:56 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Hi David. Clouds have a big surface area! They must be absorbing a LOT of CO2 and raining it into the ocean. I dare say that's a faster absorption process than straight into the ocean surface. I admit that's a complete wild guess, but photos of Earth from space show a LOT of opaque cloud, so the surface area of clouds must be about 1000 times that of the ocean surfaces. Then there is accelerated plant growth and plants have huge surface area too. It's the old problem of filling a leaky bucket. The faster you fill it, the deeper it gets, but the faster it leaks out. At any flow rate there's an equilibrium depth. Same for the atmosphere. Given our CO2 output over and above the natural rate, the question is what is the equilibrium concentration. There should be some curves available of output rate [known] and atmospheric concentration [known], giving us some guide on where the asymptote might be. Do you have any links? Mqurice

To: Moominoid who wrote (58601)	1/10/2005 4:19:48 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 74559

<The rates of these processes will change as CO2 in the atmosphere increases but not fast enough I think to make much difference to the scale of anthropogenic change.> It is consistent with I tried to explain to MQ. The arrow of time points to higher transfer of CO2 from wood, coal, crude into atmosphere and there will be some effect on clima. But effects that follow this trasnfer, takes eons to be felt. We only kicked started it real good about 150 years ago. We only have scientific brains thrown at the issue in the last 30 years or so. It will take another 150 years for the nature to display -iwthout shadow of doubt- the real effects. Now we only have guesses based on very very very few data.

To: Moominoid who wrote (58601)	1/10/2005 4:28:22 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 74559

<The rates of these processes will change as CO2 in the atmosphere increases but not fast enough I think to make much difference to the scale of anthropogenic change.> It is consistent with I tried to explain to MQ. The arrow of time points to higher transfer of CO2 from wood, coal, crude into atmosphere and there will be some effect on clima. But effects that follows this transfer, takes eons to be felt. We only kicked stated it real good about 150 years ago. We only have scientific brains thrown at the issue in the last 30 years or so. It will take another 150 years for the nature to display -without shadow of doubt- the real effects. Now we only have guesses based on very very very few data.