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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (329649)	3/21/2007 2:44:31 AM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575146

It looks like you have not much to say, it looks like you agree with most of what I said, with minor nitpicking which is incorrect: "It is more than that. There are 6+ GT of coal mined a year. That doesn't include oil production. Now, I am sure you have a firm grasp of compound interest." It looks that you are questioning the accuracy of estimations done by specialized government institution. I am sure they counted all carbon correctly, in strict accord with known fuel types and properties. For example, 6GT of mined coal would not necessarily produce 6GT of C after it burns out, etc. ".. massive coincidences that the LIA ended just after the Industrial Revolution started to get off the ground and fossil fuels started to be exploited in significant amounts." What significant amounts? Could you assign a number that ended LIA? "You are very incorrect. Ocean bottom water is know[n] as one of the largest carbon sinks. That is assuming they haven't forgotten it since I took Chemical Oceanography." Then let me ask you: what is the ground of your belief that the oceans are still sinking the carbon dioxide? Is it related to works of Takahashi by the chance? - Ali (I will respond to the vapor dynamics and doom and gloom scenarios later)