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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gg cox who wrote (10450)	3/16/2007 4:48:26 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

GG, I still haven't seen anyone mention Mq's Theory of Crystallization and Freezing of Earth. Nearly everyone still sees Gaia as "in balance", or being pushed "out of balance" by people, or gamma rays nucleating clouds, or clouds, or land mass position, or defoliation, or Gulf Stream stopping, or ocean flow generally, or methane, or CO2 release from the ocean [on heating], etc. While those things of course have effects, the big one way ticket to frozen is stripping of CO2 by plants, conversion to limestone, coal, bituminous deposits, shale oil, gas deposits, oil deposits in mostly permanent graves, though some are recycled by erosion, subduction and volcanoes. I wonder what the mass of the atmosphere was before the carboniferous era and what it is now, by constituent. My guess is it weighs a LOT less now than then. I guess it's about half the mass. There might be more water now, but CO2 is wayyyyyyy down, oxygen must be way down too with lots stashed in limestone. Another thing you rarely see mentioned is limestone. I doubt many people know that there is ten times as much carbon in limestone as there is in hydrocarbon and coal deposits. [I just made up the 10x so I am NOT offering a double your money back guarantee on that figure being correct]. Maybe it's 100 times. Heck, it might be 1000 times. There's a LOT of limestone around the place. Bones and shells seem to last better than wet-chemistry tissues. Fossils are not of livers and brains. Wharfie's idea of argument is to call me an idiot and a joke for his daughter's class's amusement. Some call people ostriches, which again isn't a convincing argument. Popper would find something to refute the theory. One could even suspect that if the main opposing argument is, "You are an idiot, your feet stink, you are a loser too and I have got a PhD in eclectic harmonisation of sand crabs in ph 6.9 wetlands in upper Eketahuna", then maybe the Climate Change merchants of doom don't have much of an argument. It's not as though it's difficult to understand the idea that people burning a lot of hydrocarbons and coal and putting the CO2 in the atmosphere might cause a change. Though most people who worry about the Greenhouse Effect wouldn't know GE from Genetic Engineering, the ozone layer, and think supermarket plastic bags cause acid rain. Mqurice