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 (329730)	3/22/2007 2:05:43 AM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574888

"Still, even the highest percentage of fly ash isn't going to reduce the carbon content by all that much." This is ridiculous. Pardon my persistence, but the carbon content IS reduced exactly by the percentage of non-carbon additives. By definition. "Regardless, this is a red herring. Your contention that adding new carbon at low rates has zero effect ....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" My contention was not about zero effect, but that the natural fluxes substantially exceed human contributions, and that the whole growth of CO2 could be a result of other, much more powerful natural processes. You seem to agree above that the Nature takes care of extra fluxes quite nautrally. "6000ppm... Do I detect a straw man? When was that ever mentioned?" You nave been inattentive. I mentioned 10x and 20x concentrations in one of my previous posts. "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." Not really. The major goal was to estimate the climatological mean of global ocean-air flux of CO2: whoi.edu My contention is that all estimates of global flux could be in big error because an average of a product of oscillating components is not equal to product of their averages. Just like a power factor in computer power supplies. Therefore, all numerical estimations of fluxes in textbooks have in fact no justification, and even the sign of total flux could be opposite to what it is believed to be. "But the long term data indicates that the PCO2 content in the oceans and the atmosphere tend to be in equilibrium." Equilibrium in what sense? If you mean an equilibrium that Earth is in continuous global semi-chaotic oscillations between ice ages and deglaciations, then we might be in agreement. However, I suspect that People of Climatology would belligerently disagree.