In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:15:08 -0900: Hi, [snip] >If it is indeed true then I could not agree more that it is >catastrophic. I think independent confirmation is badly needed, not >just at Mount Zeppelin but all over the polar regions. Too bad NASA >has been canceling earth science missions. >
Indeed. > >> >> An exponential model doesn't rise steeply enough to cover the >> change in the rate of increase (i.e. the acceleration). > > >If the data is correct then I think that implies that a stepwise >increase is occurring. An exponential model does not apply to a >stepwise increase. Assuming the numbers are correct, that means some >threshold has been crossed and there is an entirely new source of >CO2. I agree. >Maybe methane oxidizes much faster than the rate implied by a >12 year half-life. Maybe the ocean warming is somehow releasing CO2 CO2 dissolves better in cold water than in warm water. >- or failing to sequester it due to massive krill death, etc. The >numbers are very hard to believe, but making the effort at >verification is obviously of great importance. Another possibility is that a slow down in the "conveyor" may be leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere (because CO2 would saturate surface water, then not be removed), so that our contribution accumulates faster. (BTW krill are crustaceans, so they should be creating CO2, not consuming it). [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
