SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: LindyBill who wrote (253623)6/8/2008 11:30:07 PM
From: Maurice Winn   of 794002
 
I don't have a problem with CO2. From quarter of a century of thinking about Greenhouse Effects [and paid handsomely to do so by BP for some of that time, and given access to all sorts of information otherwise unavailable to me], I'm in favour of CO2 emissions.

CO2 emissions are a good thing at current rates. We have raised CO2 levels from dire starvation all-time low homeopathic amounts which plants had to struggle to get with wide-open stomata losing lots of water, to tolerable levels which have enabled rapid plant growth and reduced need for water.

Gaia had stripped CO2 to a thin gruel and buried carbon by the petaton in coal, shale, gas, oil, limestone and dispersed through marine sediments.

There is a weird idea which nearly everyone has, probably including you, that Earth is in some kind of balance, which just happens to be handy for everything to live on.

Earth is NOT in balance. Yes, there are feedback loops and ways in which homeostatis is achieved, but it's still only ephemeral stability on a one-way trip to a crystallized and frozen planet. Humans have the ability to slow the process significantly and for all we know, we were about to plunge into the last glaciation of the ice-age leading to a permanently frozen wasteland, with ice to the equator and ice covering all land other than volcanic vents.

Some more CO2 is obviously not a problem because over umpty million years there was a LOT more CO2 than now. But there has never been much less.

We need more CO2. At 450ppm we can perhaps rest on the oars, but I'd prefer to see 600 ppm to feel more secure. We have little chance of getting to that level. Sunspots and water [in the form of ice, clouds and vapour] will dominate our pathetic attempts at climate modification with CO2. So we can only cross our fingers and hope that the CO2 we emit is enough to do the job.

Meanwhile, as the temperature increases, the rate of evaporation from equatorial regions increases and snow deposition at the poles increases, so sea levels will probably fall faster than they'll rise from water expansion due to the higher temperatures. It takes 1500 years for oceanic circulation to do a round trip. So the ocean heating process is not going to be quick. Nearly all the extra heat is removed by latent heat of evaporation, convected to high altitude to reach the dew point, is radiated to space, with clouds heading north and south to dump snow.

You can stop holding your breath, you can water your pot plants and take the Hummer for a drive to the beach to help prevent the ice age returning if you can afford it.

Mqurice
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext