Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: population growth & physics ed



Let's assume that the production of atmospheric C-14 has remained
constant for the past several hundred years. [Increases in methane and
whether or not more wood is burned today--worldwide--than in the past
may actually push the amount up.] Now 200 years ago the oceans
absorbed a certain PERCENTAGE of the CO2 and let's assume a _rough_
equilibrium.

Nowhere near. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere today (360 ppm)
is near to being twice the equilibrium concentration above water at
ocean ambient temperatures (~200 ppm). It likely was well in excess 200
years ago as well, perhaps ~150 ppm, but there is no way of knowing for
sure. Ice cores taken in Antarctica have cast little light on this
subject. Their "fossil CO2" concentration record may ultimately answer
this question, but I understand that the picture is still a bit unsettled.
Recent (less than 1700 years BP) data are difficult to interpret in the
Vostok ice core.

You might be interested in browsing the numerical data through

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov:80/cdiac/

Now comes the Industrial Revolution and our use of fossil
fuels. Today the AMOUNT of atmospheric CO2 has more than doubled and
continues to rise.

The record is unclear back that far, as I have stated. Theoretical
results have fallen by the wayside as more data surface invalidating
them. At one time it was common to neglect volcanic contributions to
CO2 in the atmosphere, largely because the numbers were unknown.
About five years ago, in an article in Nature, it was reported that
measurement of the venting gasses from Mt. Aetna contained a lot of
CO2, about 5% of the calculated anthropogenic contribution, and that
reckoned only with gasses vented from the caldera itself. They estimated
that the slopes probably contributed a comparable amount! Thus neglecting
volcanic contributions was unjustified. There exist other volcanos, but
few have been measured, though some are known to vent considerable CO2.
This is exemplary of the state of knowledge which I characterized earlier
as being somewhat insufficient for purposes of global disaster declaration.

Because the new CO2 doesn't have any C14 the
CONCENTRATION of C14 has halved. The oceans DO now absorb more CO2 on
an absolute basis, BUT what about a percentage basis? Hard for me to
see how the percentage would be greater. If anything, the percentage
absorption of atmospheric CO2 by the oceans should be down a
little--the overall amount of CO2 IS rising. If the percentage
absorbed is lower than the percentage absorption of the C14 is lower
and there would be _slightly_ more atmospheric C14 due to the use of
fossil fuels. At least this is my reasoning--????

I don't follow it, I'm afraid. The analysis is simple. Both the absolute
amount of CO2 and the relative concentration of CO2 are diminished by
burning fossil fuel. The effect is *tiny* as I said; I was merely
dramatizing the error which you have now acknowledged. I'm not advocating
the burning of fossil fuel to clear up a radilogical hazard.

My main point without the 'absurd' mistake {Leigh's language has been a
bit demeaning} was that burning fossil fuels IS NOT good for the
environment regardless of the level of the greenhouse threat, so it is
only prudent to actively pursue ways to reduce such use.

Excuse the language. Please read "incorrect" instead of "absurd".

There have also been other posts--by others then Leigh--that seem to me
to border on "physicist arrogance" in dismissing the work of
climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, etc.

The people you mention are very cautious in their scientific statements.
It is in the translation to the popular media that these statements
become garbled. Physicists are capable of reading the primary literature
in this field. You should not miss the opportunity to so so.

I largely agree with your other comments following this. Where we differ
I lack expertise, since economic impact is involved, but it is my belief
that a decision to reduce CO2 emissions at great cost is unjustified by
the state of scientific knowledge today.

Leigh