On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:11 PM, James Annan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Or use it as biofuel. But 100 years of carbon sink would be a pretty
> good solution regardless of its finite nature.
How can it be so large? If the present perturbation is less than 20%
due to deforestation, and we need something like triple the present
perturbation to balance the coming century, even if the great deserts
can compensate for all deforestation to date it seems off by an order
of magnitude.
Admittedly I haven't RTFP...
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
