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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (187931)	6/1/2006 3:38:07 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"If we were to suddenly stop burning fossil fuel, the natural carbon cycle would probably restore the previous concentration in a thousand years or so." I assume that Goodstein is conservatively applying several century-long e-folding times to derive his thousand years, but he implicitly assumes that the CO2 will relax toward its 1750 concentration. The point is that it does not. Gee whiz.. is that all? 1000 years?? And people are STILL SERIOUSLY RESISTING "Geritol Therapy" for the oceans in order to attempt to rapidly reduce the mass of C02?? This only indicates to me that WE MUST explore the option.. Because if CO2 is causing feedback in water vapor levels, I don't see how this is going to stop until humidity levels even out across the globe... I realize I'm not a scientist (as least not an atmospheric one), but this is what I'm understanding from its implicit logic. Am I wrong? Hawk