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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (6885)	4/4/2009 11:59:40 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Hawk, you aren't doing the math, and as such, your conclusions are erroneous. Let me answer you in the same manner you answered me when I told you that can't understand increasing levels of CO2 without including an analysis of the 30% decrease in phytoplankton which would naturally be inclined to absorb it. I think we can safely ignore "that" for now That's what we were originally discussing. But to be serious, I reviewed that site I posted from DOE and realized that they had included US methane emissions as "CO2 equivalents" so my analysis of it was incorrect. But the discussion was about the solar sunspot cycle and how indications were that we're facing a period of global cooling that might actually make us desire to have GW. Hawk