I think you owe it to yourself to study (it takes only a few minutes) the website www.scotese.com Christopher Scotese is a well known, well respected geologist. Click on Climate and study the climate history for the past 540 million years (most of that time without humans). You will quickly be disabused of ideas that the warming continues to a super hot state. It gets into dinosaur temperature range but not beyond.
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Nissen Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 6:37 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [geo] Re: Back to Nature No, it's all wrong - about the CO2 being absorbed from the atmosphere and the planet cooling. On the contrary, if we were all to drop dead tomorrow, global warming would continue for thousands of years, as I explain in the thread I started, about the GREAT LIE. There'd also be an immediate warming spurt, as the sulphur aerosol pollution (which has a cooling effect) would be quickly washed out of the atmosphere. And,within a few decades, on top of the CO2 warming would be the warming from methane as permafrost melted, and the sea level would rise 60-70 metres as Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melted. Thus, if we disappear, or just carry on as we are for that matter, the Earth will continue tipping into a super-hot state, which probably won't be habitable for humans, even at the poles. However it is unlikely that the Earth will go the way of Venus, with the oceans boiling away, if that's any comfort. Cheers, John --- Alvia Gaskill wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath:_Population_Zero I recently saw the Nat. Geo program "Aftermath: Population Zero," one of several hypothetical accounts of what the world would be like without people. Not less people, no people. These seem to have been inspired by the work of Alan Weisman, author of the book "The World Without Us." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Without_Us In addition to describing what would happen to domesticated animals and pets left without humans to take care of them, the fate of infrastructure is also presented. This particular program (there is another one that has been turned into a series on the History Channel called, appropriately enough, "Life After People" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_After_People ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_After_People:_The_Series [for those people still not depressed enough after watching the original documentary]) also explores changes in the Earth's climate without its number one interferent, us. After 150 years, winters are colder than during the last days of humans with greater snowfall, indicating declining GHG levels. It is stated that the oceans will remove 13.5Gt of CO2 per year. Is this correct? After 200 years, the excess CO2 from human emissions is completely eliminated by plants and trees. Don't tell David Archer. Perhaps the increase in plant growth will speed the removal. Or won't that matter? After 500 years, forests return to the state they had 10,000 years ago. I doubt that one, as that would have been at the tail end of the ice age. After 25,000 years, the interglacial is over, the ice sheets return and erase NYC along with most of the areas wiped out before. Which raises an interesting question for the geo haters. If it became apparent that the interglacial was ending, would you be in favor of artificial means of prolonging it to ensure the planet's habitability for billions of humans? If you say no, then I think I'm going to propose to Nat. Geo or History a new series, Life After YOU People! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
