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: neolib who wrote (212878)	1/13/2007 1:09:25 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

. . . . well studied, hardly new . . . . not relevant . . . . no help . . . . You seem to by operating from a purely political point of view. Which is fine if you are a politician or a political operative, but it's not the way that scientists think. And science class is for teaching science.

To: neolib who wrote (212878)	1/13/2007 1:40:15 PM
From: Don Hurst	Respond to of 281500

This from Cobalt Blue's response to you... >>" You seem to by operating from a purely political point of view. Which is fine if you are a politician or a political operative, but it's not the way that scientists think. "<< After you wrote this... >>" CO2 absorption is (IIRC) the most important sink and is very well studied, hardly new. The article you link claims that further melting might add 20M tons of additional sink per annum. This is not relevant in the global scheme. A much worse problem is that higher ocean temps result in lower ocean CO2 absorption, which raises the atmospheric equilibrium CO2 content. IIRC, something like 10 - 20 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 for each 1 deg C ocean temp increase. So there is no net help from that quarter with higher temps. "<< Yup, she has got you, clearly the way politicos speak and think. Ohmigosh <g>