> > As for what you are saying, I believe that there are very big errors both
> > of judgement and of fact, frankly.
> > That's called disagreement. Intelligent people with different
> > viewpoints sometimes have those.
> One big benefit of science is that it has the capacity to eliminate some
> those viewpoints that are wrong.
Yes, and therein lies the whole point of discussing them :)
> You wouldn't know that from what passes for public debate these days, but we
> are trying to do better around here than they manage on TV.
One would hope that wouldn't be too difficult.
> > >. Any sensible understanding of the carbon cycle supports
> > > > > the intuitively obvious conclusion: the sooner, the better.
> > > > You're wrong here, there's a carbon saturation after which it
> > > > ceases to be a forcing.
> > > This isn't really true, it turns out. Consider Venus.
> > Consider Mars which has an atmosphere of 230000 ppm co2 why then
> > is it not an oven?
> Do you understand the concept of optical depth? Please be serious.
Yes, and that's exactly why there's a saturation of a given gas.
Also it's important to note that practice frequently deviates from
theory.
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
This shows clearly a geological history of global temperature.
Note the plateau at 22 degrees C. These times included ANY time when
the atmospheric CO2 exceeded approximately 600 ppm, including millions
of years when it ixceeded 2000 ppm with no additional corresponding
warming whatsoever. What source to you use to imply that that is
either innacurate or irrelovent? If we are planning to expend the
herculean efforts involved in a 550 ppm stabilization (again, I am
sceptical that 25% current emissions would produce that) and 600 ppm is
the response cieling, then what's the point??
> Simply because there are a great deal of factors at
> > work other than carbon. Venus isn't a fair comparison due to several
> > factors, among them, 1) it is closer to the sun.
> Not close enough. Do you understand the relationship between the
> Stefan-Boltzmann law and planetary surface temperature? Again this is
> first-year stuff.
Yes, I understand the concepts involved in blackbody radiation,
and in radiative forcing. It is nonetheless a fact that once the
atmosphere is completely opaque at the indicated range of wavelengths,
adding more opacifier doesn't result in additional warming.
> Us old guys are partial to Wallace and Hobbs, "Atmospheric Science, an
> Introductory Survey" 1977 but there are plenty of alternatives. I understand
> that there is a new edition of W&H as of 2006.
> 2) Our moon has
> > been shown to have gravitationally "skimmed" our atmosphere such that
> > there is a very great deal less total volatile volume to work with on
> > earth.
> News to me. Are you making that up? What does that have to do with anything
> if so? And what do you mean by "volatile"?
No. gasses leak from the atmosphere when the average temperature
velocity is greater tthan 1/10 of escape velocity. For the earth, the
moon produces a very significant reduction (circa 15%) in that escape
velocity which in turn increases the amount of atmospheric leakage.
Particularly true for the primordial atmosphere which was considerably
hotter and thicker than the current one, and when the moon was a good
deal closer to the earth. To be honest, I couldn't find a cite.
If you look at venus as compared to earth, you will find that a)
venus has more co2 in it's atmosphere than there is carbon on the
planet earth. B) the venerian atmosphere is several times as thick as
our own, despite being of the same planetary mass. Please explain
these differences.
I read about this in a scholarly paper 6 years ago, but if you
choose to deny it because I can't find it, we can drop the point and
continue to disagree on this point due to the fact that I can't locate
my source.
> I'd just as soon you dropped this unpromising hodge-podge and followed up on
> optical depth and Stefan-Boltzmann, but feel free to defend it if you can.
> > Okay, adult, present the alternate source of energy you are
> > supporting. Or present some evidence that 25% of current emissions
> > would produce a stable carbon cycle.
> Let's try to take our time here. I will just answer this one question, and
> then we can see how it impacts the rest of your opinions.
>
> I refer you to IPCC WG1 TAR 3, section 2.3.2.2; you can find it at
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/075.htm .
The TAR generally bothers me as a source. It tends toward
political motivation and for the most part presents as a collection of
statements without the bulk of the evidence to support them. However,
accepting it as a valid source, I still don't see a stabilization
mechanism defined in your reference, merely a comparison of different
"stabilization scenarios", and a bald assertion that these are indeed
stabilization scenarios. What mechanism produces the carbon
sequestration that you and they assert will remove the annually added
co2 from the atmosphere? the global land use currently in play
prevents that mechanism from being the addition of more forest land,
and the ocean under warming conditions is a source of co2, not a sink.
> > I do apologise if I have been a little snippy, I am newly
> > transplanted from the land of vitriolic bitterness that is
> > sci-environment.
> Well, then, welcome, but please, don't import the nonsense. There's a reason
> we're doing the extra work to moderate this group.
And it clearly produces positive results. Which is very much
appreciated.
> If you calm down, lose your attachment to your ideas, respect people who
> have thought about this stuff for decades, and start thinking, you might
> make a positive contribution. If you just want to play "flame wars", though,
> there are plenty of other places on the net that will serve you better.
If you would cease condescending, and begin to participate in a
debate instead of insulting me, you would find your credibility to
increase. in short, practice what you preach. Either dispute the
points and the conclusion, or don't bother disputing the conclusion.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
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/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
