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 (7096)	3/4/2005 4:10:45 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12235

Okay Ashley, we won't dig up ALL the carbon. Just enough to get rid of the risk of another glaciation. A nice middle of the road solution. There is a LOT of carbon buried and even if we try hard, we'd never get more than a tiny fraction of it back into the biosphere. Look at all the limestone for a start! Full of carbon. Then all the shale oil. Vast amounts. Not to mention Orinoco type bituminous deposits which are vast. Don't forget coal in thick and thin seams which will never be excavated. And peat - digging around in swamps is hard work. Methane all over the place and we won't get much of that either. We can only dig decent size deposits. We should be able to get enough to get 500 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, provided it doesn't soak into the ocean and plants too quickly [filling a leaky tank gets more and more difficult, the deeper it gets, because the pressure goes up and rate of leakage increases]. That should be enough to keep us warm. With an H5N1-caused 30% reduction in the human population, the survivors will be using a LOT less hydrocarbon anyway, so the greenhouse worries will go away. Mqurice