fat_boy wrote:
And I answered that by adding your 30% to give 200-250ppm, which still only gets us to around 700ppm tops.
As I keep saying, that's still a simplification. I just mentioned and estimated one more factor, and by the way, you miscalculated that completely. Unless I typed it up wrong before (Semi-busy morning, so only have a few minutes to post at the moment)... Something like 1/3rd of our output is absorbed by the oceans, and 1/3rd by the biosphere. If the oceans stop absorbing, then we're not increasing our output by 30%... We're doubling it. We're going from 1/3rd in the atmosphere to 2/3 in the atmosphere. But again, feedback cycles and other factors will complicate it much more, and I don't know enough to guess at the actual numbers those will involve. Remind me to check out those links later, when I have some more time. EDIT: Ok, have a little more time now to check out those links... I'm not going to go through and try to process everything in that PDF, but the abstract is interesting. If it turns out to be correct, well, that would be a good thing. As for the second... The guy's basically saying that we can't do anything about CO2 emissions, so we might as well just ignore them. Obviously the brief article is just a summary, but that seems a pretty simplistic argument. True, we can't cut our emissions down to zero. No one in their right mind would believe that to be a possibility, at least in the foreseeable future. But IF it's proven that our CO2 emissions are harmful, then even cutting them by 25% would give us 33% more time to figure out a better solution. We could even tackle the problem from the other side, using CO2 scrubbers to REMOVE some of it from the atmosphere, if that proves to be necessary.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)
modified on Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:40 AM