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 (61811)	4/12/2005 11:54:30 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 74559

Moom, I explained the absorption difference between drops of water in clouds and the ocean surface, even if it has waves. It is enormous. Unless my theory is wrong somehow and a simple measure of carbon content of rain would see if there is any carbon dioxide in it, we can assume the clouds and rain do the scrubbing. There would also be other carbon [as soot] as particulates act as nucleation sites for rain. SO2 is definitely scrubbed like that. SO2 gets picked up very easily in a few weeks. So, getting it out of the atmosphere is easy enough. What matters is the rate of absorption and removal from the ocean surface. Have there been oceanic CO2 concentration measurements for a century as there have been for atmospheric? With the accuracy of measurement available these days, it should be a doddle to determine the change in CO2 in the top metre of ocean even over a decade. That would show whether there really is a buildup or not. Since the CO2 and the sunlight and the plants all meet in the top metre or so of the ocean, the ocean should be a LOT better at stripping CO2 than the atmosphere, which stretches kilometres high with CO2 in the stratosphere out of reach of the hungry plants at ground level. So, I doubt that there has been a significant oceanic CO2 increase, though there should be a small one. I suspect the ocean is a high speed sink [which seems likely judging by how much oil and gas have been stripped from the biosphere and buried for millions of years]. There's a lot of coal too, so even earthbound plants do a LOT of carbon stripping and burying. Not to mention limestone [another huge carbon sink]. Diffusion into clouds is the biggie. Diffusion into the ocean surface is trivial. Should I send these posts to Nature to publish, explaining how it all works? Maybe Scientific American would pay more. Mqurice