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] |
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.
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.
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--????
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.
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.