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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (11245)	11/8/2006 2:22:58 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218047

Elroy, where did you get <... it would quickly find its way into the atmosphere.>? I didn't say that. Maybe you figure if we eat deep water fish we'd be putting the CO2 back in the atmosphere. True, but the amount of fish we'd drag up from the deep would not be significant compared with the amount of CO2 poured down. You made up things which were wrong. CO2 500 metres under water would NOT be getting to the surface in a big hurry. That's a LOT of water to mix with. 500 metres thickness of water is a lot to be buried under. The point of the scheme is to avoid putting the CO2 into the atmosphere, which I'd have thought is rather obvious given the vast media effort on that issue. Where do you get the "massive damage" idea? I won't repeat myself, see previous post, regarding the Sydney Morning Herald blog. I suppose you were thinking that the puddle of CO2 would just sit there for thousands of years. Of course not. It would dissolve. There are constant currents so it would constantly dissolve. Maybe you misunderstood this, though it seems clear enough to me: <It would take millions of years and the islanders couldn't afford enough oil to do it. And the ocean would wash away the CO2 too quickly - the ocean is VERY big. > Anyway, coral islands are irrelevant to the main issue which is the huge population centres such as China and India. With a pipeline from Iran to power stations in India, the CO2 could be compressed and poured overboard into the Indian ocean. Look how much water there is. <The ocean's volume is estimated to be 292,131,000 cubic kilometers (70,086,000 mi3).> That's a LOT. Imagine how much CO2 could squeeze into that. Humans produce how many cubic kilometres of CO2 per year [if it was liquefied]? en.wikipedia.org With a pipeline from power stations into a deep trench, there could be a lot of electricity generated. I'm not saying we should start doing this, just that it's a solution if there really is too much CO2 being put into the air, which I don't believe. It's an inconvenient truth for the global warming industry that atmospheric temperatures are not increasing as hoped. 100 years of burning and we have achieved only a 30% CO2 increase and hardly any enthalpy increase. Ocean temperatures have increased how much? I could ask Google I suppose. The water is very cold around here and we now have icebergs attacking NZ from Antarctica. Mqurice