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: Ali Chen who wrote (329708)	3/21/2007 2:56:12 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575036

"Generally less than 1%? Are you sure about your numbers? Wyoming coals have 9-15% ash content," Good point. I should have looked it up. Still, even the highest percentage of fly ash isn't going to reduce the carbon content by all that much. "And what is the ash content of goals burning in China and Russia?" I dunno. I suspect not too much different. There is no reason why those furnaces should be any less efficient than those in the West, the technology matured decades ago. The costs and technology of efficiently burning coal isn't high, it is removing the fly ash from the flue where the costs kick in. Regardless, this is a red herring. Your contention that adding new carbon at low rates has zero effect. Yet, the CO2 content has almost doubled over the past century or so. The biggest change since then has been human activity in buring fossil fuels and clear cutting of the carbon sinks of the forests. That has reversed in the US to a large extent. And studies that have investigated the flow of carbon from West to East indicates that much of the carbon release in the US is counter-balanced to at least some extent by the regrowth of many of the forests. "but it is quite short of producing prehistorical levels of 6000ppm." Do I detect a straw man? When was that ever mentioned? "So, LIA was already "ending"," When is the marking point? By the end of the 19th century, the world was clearly on a warming trend. The bottom was probably the mid-19th. Given the random walk that both weather and climate exhibit, putting you finger on a particular date and pronouncing "here it is" is a fools game. Bottom line, things were getting colder, as would would expect when an interglacial starts to enter a glacial. However, things started to turn around when fossil fuels started to be used. Long term temperature profiles from ice cores and oxygen ratios in sediments back up, albeit weakly, that we should be in a long term cooling phase. "I mentioned Takahashi, which implies the 35-years of research and mapping of oceans with sources and sinks of CO2, based on measurements in differences in partial CO2 pressure and diffusion across "stagnant layer"." Yes, you did. I am not certain where you are going with that. From what I have read, Dr. Takahashi's work indicates that PCO2 of the atmosphere and the oceans can vary quite a bit depending on conditions. This should not be a huge surprise, we are aware of large scale, short term phenomena like El Nino and La Nina. But the long term data indicates that the PCO2 content in the oceans and the atmosphere tend to be in equilibrium.