"bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> > >. 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 and further milions of years when it
> exceeded 4000 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
> ceiling, then what's the point??
Even if I were to grant you that there *is* a ceiling, and it does
correspond to 22oC, where are you getting you 600ppm from? Is this graph
your entire case for there being a ceiling to CO2's radiative effects? I
would think there should be alot of science behind such a claim that AFAICT
is in rather direct opposition to all currently held theories of atmospheric
chemistry. Your claim as I understand it is that at some point in the very
near future we will pass a point of CO2 concentration beyond which no
further warming will occur. You need alot more than this graph.
> It really is a little unreasonable to discuss WHAT You propose to
> do and WHY you propose doing it without at least a little consideration
> to HOW it will be accomplished, and at what cost. That's why my
I think you are partially correct as this needs to be done before executing
a plan. However, I think it is entirely appropriate to discuss WHAT and WHY
with very little consideration for HOW until such time as there is agreement
on WHAT. Climate change discussions *must* get past two stages before there
is any utility whatsoever in addressing HOW:
- there must be acknowledgement of the problem
* climate and environment are changing too rapidly
* humans are causing it
* it will have detrimental effects
- there must be understanding of a general solution
* avoid dangerous levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean
* reduce levels of other contributing factors
Until there is agreement on these points, I have yet to be convinced that
there is any utility in discussing exactly how and to what degree any
solution can be acheived.
Coby
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
